|| *Comments on the 2011 Kobalt Tools 400:* View the most recent comment <#174> | Post a comment <#post> 1. Anonymous posted: 03.06.2011 - 6:59 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Holy cow how bad was this race? The aero problems were out of control, and if this is how the speedway races are going to be this year then we are in a lot of trouble. No matter how fast a car was, once it got back in traffic it was stuck for the whole race. Then whoever was in the lead took off to at LEAST a full second lead. The only car able to close within a second of a leader was Kyle Busch and even he stalled out when he got within a few car lengths. I've been a NASCAR fan since 1996, and this is in the top five worst races I've ever seen. 2. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:01 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) The 99 car has that 2008 look to it. Outstanding job by Ambrose. He was in the Top 5 almost all day. The 48 had an awful day. That is bad news for everyone else. See 2008. 3. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:05 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) The areo issues on the new nose need to be addressed before Texas. Not every race can be "thrilling" or "entertaining," but that was borderline unwatchable. Sadly, there was more passing during the Nationwide race and the FOX crew were bored to tears by the end. A largely forgettable race, so let's try to keep the comments low in the 50-70 range, please. 4. Baker posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:06 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) And Tony's crew cost him yet another race and this time its at a track he's yet to win a race. Well Darlington is the next race on the to-do list, but he's going to contend for the win at Bristol in 2 weeks. 5. RacingRocks57 posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Nice to see Edwards do a backflip again. 6. Andy B posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) 19th career win for Edwards tying him with Kyle Busch and breaking a tie with Dale Jr and Kenseth. 7. Bronco posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:10 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Great to see Carl win again. This is his third in the last five Cup races and his second at LVMS, this time with the oil tank cover on. Here's hoping for a repeat of 2008. JPM now has a top ten at every track except Homestead, in just over four years. Menard continues to impress, moving up in the points. 8. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:10 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) DSFF- The 48 underwent an R&D test session that will pay dividends later in the year. Indeed, bad news for the competition. 9. Anonymous posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:12 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) DW didn't seem to have a clue that Edwards won the last two races of last year until Larry Mac told him after the checkered flag. 10. Mike posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:18 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I said before this season Carl would be Jimmie's biggest threat and he isn't disappointing. Jimmie will have his hands full with that #99 car. Dale Jr scores his 2nd consecutive top 10 for the first time since Daytona and Loudon last year. Stevie's doing a great job and has Jr going in the right direction. Oh yeah, and he clearly out ran Jimmie Johnson with the same equipment. What's the excuse haters? It was good to see some new faces up front. Great runs for Montoya, Ambrose, Truex, and Vickers. Paul Menard also had a top 5 run going before fading at the end. That team looks to be better than expected right now. 11. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:21 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "DSFF- The 48 underwent an R&D test session that will pay dividends later in the year. Indeed, bad news for the competition." *nods sadly* Las Vegas has always been boring. When they reconfigured it, I have no idea why they didn't do something to make it quirky instead of just another cookie cutter. 12. CarlEdwards99 posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:22 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Seriously doubt if Tony would of just took 2 and maintained his 3.5 second lead Carl would of been able to hunt him down. It's not like the guys were closing in on him before the pit stop. Those old left sides were holding steady. 13. CarlEdwards99 posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:24 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Dale Jr scores his 2nd consecutive top 10 for the first time since Daytona and Loudon last year. Stevie's doing a great job and has Jr going in the right direction. Oh yeah, and he clearly out ran Jimmie Johnson with the same equipment. What's the excuse haters?" your bragging about a 10th and 8th place finish, racing for the best team in the sport. That says all you need to know about the state of Juniors career. 14. CarlEdwards99 posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:25 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) last 5 races for Carl: 3 wins 1 2nd place and one race that he probably had the best car before he went behind the wall 15. TeamPlayersBlue posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:25 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Actually, the last race I can remember that had this severe of an aero problem was Las Vegas last year. At least we dont have to deal with one of these horrible high banked cookie cutters until Texas. 16. JP88 posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:34 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Backflip wins...ehhh I wish Keselowski payed him back, would of been hilarious. Stewart was pissed, Montoya and Ambrose run 3rd and 4th, nice runs, especially for Taz. Jr gets another top 10 but I thought he could of gotten a top-5. He looked awesome when he passed Carl and then stalled out passing Truex and that was it. Still a good run. Biffle's in a horrible hole after his nemesis, the fuel can, screwed him over again. Vickers gets a top-10 beating Pole Sitter, Matt Kenseth, who Vickers vowed payback on, surprised that didn't happen at the end. Bad days for #24 and #18 and not only is Jamie Mac, Sliced Bread, Biff, and Mayor are in a huge hole in terms of the chase, they need to step it up because they could end up being out of the top-35 with another bad finish. 17. Roger posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:41 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Vickers gets a top-10 beating Pole Sitter, Matt Kenseth, who Vickers vowed payback on, surprised that didn't happen at the end." I'm hoping that Vickers saw the replay realized that paying him back for last week's honest mistake would've absurd. 18. potatosalad48 posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:48 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) post 10- the excuse, which really isn't an excuse at all, was that the 48 team used this race as a test session, essentially knowing that 1 bad race wouyldn't hurt them in the long run. jimmie admitted this over the weekend which is why they ran so poorly. BTW, I'm not a hater, I'm just speaking the truth. 19. Mike posted: 03.06.2011 - 7:59 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Oh yeah, I wonder if Brad is beginning to doubt his move to Penske? Like I said all along he would have been better off waiting for the 5 ride to open up, but he got impatient and is now stuck in crappy equipment. "post 10- the excuse, which really isn't an excuse at all, was that the 48 team used this race as a test session, essentially knowing that 1 bad race wouyldn't hurt them in the long run. jimmie admitted this over the weekend which is why they ran so poorly. BTW, I'm not a hater, I'm just speaking the truth." As far as I know every Hendrick car had a different setup in their cars today, so that does hold some validity I guess. They must feel really good about their cars to be trying stuff this early in the season. I wouldn't be surprised if we see all 4 HMS cars make the chase for the first time in their history. 20. Eric posted: 03.06.2011 - 8:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) The 48 team wasn't the only team Hendrick team experimenting. The 5,24, and 88 teams were experimenting also based on what said on fox. The 88 team had the best chassis/race set up and I am sure the 48 team is allowed to get that information from the 88 team. The other thing to look at is Hendrick hasn't been Qualifying great as a whole for Phoenix and Vegas. HMS best Qualifying effect for a team for those 2 races is 10th by Mark Martin at Phoenix. HMS could be acceptable to being involved in a crash at some short tracks and 1 mile tracks as a result. 21. Bronco posted: 03.06.2011 - 8:16 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Oh yeah, I wonder if Brad is beginning to doubt his move to Penske? Like I said all along he would have been better off waiting for the 5 ride to open up, but he got impatient and is now stuck in crappy equipment." He is most certainly not in crappy equipment. His team has factory support, he has a big buck sponsor, and he has the same crew chief that he won the Nationwide championship with, the guy who was supposed to help take Brad to the next level. What's the setback now? He finished behind a Germain car, behind a guy making only his fourth Cup level start, and another guy who just returned from medical leave. Good to see Dale Jr rebounds nicely from two weeks of poor qualifying efforts to score consecutive top 10s. Were it not for Daytona, he'd probably be in the top 5 in points by now. 22. Watto posted: 03.06.2011 - 8:24 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "He finished behind a Germain car, behind a guy making only his fourth Cup level start, and another guy who just returned from medical leave." Yeah. So did Greg Biffle, Jamie McMurray, etc. Crap happens. You'll have your bad races with the good, this is only their 3rd race together and Phoenix wasn't exactly a bad showing. They'll improve on the tracks that they've notoriously had trouble at. I don't believe Paul Wolfe has ever been a crew chief on Cup cars prior, so this is a bit of a learning experience. I think it'll work out better than last year though. They need to find a way to get the 2 and the 22 much closer on raceday. 23. lordlowe posted: 03.06.2011 - 8:27 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) what an atrocious race 24. Mike posted: 03.06.2011 - 8:28 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "He is most certainly not in crappy equipment. His team has factory support, he has a big buck sponsor, and he has the same crew chief that he won the Nationwide championship with, the guy who was supposed to help take Brad to the next level." That's a good point. The only thing I can come back with is Brad is still driving for the #12 team, which despite a 500 win hasn't been that great since 2006. A crew chief change isn't enough to fix that team as we saw today. If they had put Brad with the original #2 team then it would be a totally different story. 25. Mike posted: 03.06.2011 - 8:29 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) and as Watto pointed out we are only 3 races into the season. There's still a long way to go so we'll see what happens 26. Rusty posted: 03.06.2011 - 8:39 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Matt Kenseth got a rare pole and was the favorite going in. A flat tire early ruined that and he had to fight all day just to finish 11th. 27. 18fan posted: 03.06.2011 - 8:42 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Kurt Busch is the only driver to finish in the top 10 in all three races. Carl Edwards and Ryan Newman become the first drivers to post multiple top 5s and Newman posts the first streak of top 5s this year. It's amazing with this points system how far you fall with one bad race, like Jeff Gordon falling from 5th to 19th and Kyle Busch from 1st to 14th. 28. Smokefan05 posted: 03.06.2011 - 8:45 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Poeple are complaining about Aero issues.....-_- Aero is ALWAYS problem at places like Vegas. It isn't the new nose, it something called "air." Clean air is better then dirty air. 29. DaleJrFan19 posted: 03.06.2011 - 8:47 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) *Yawn* Race over? k, Oh lookie, Jr finished 8th...that's cool I guess. Yeah, this was pretty boring. 30. I Seize the Day posted: 03.06.2011 - 9:05 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Good race IMO. Cars going around in circles is good no matter what. 31. 18fan posted: 03.06.2011 - 9:23 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Junior fell victim to characteristics of Steve Letarte cars: not good on long runs and the last couple runs are always the worst of the day. 32. Eric posted: 03.06.2011 - 10:08 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Dale Earnhardt Jr. is known to fade late races since before Steve Letarte became his crew chief despite Steve's reputation with Jeff Gordon. It is not all on Steve. At least Dale is about to get back to back top 10's now. I don't know how he will be rest of the season though. This Dale's best start for a season since 2008. 33. TheThirdTurn posted: 03.06.2011 - 10:39 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Anyone going to mention Ambrose? He ran super well all day, probably could have gotten Montoya with five more laps. 34. 18fan posted: 03.06.2011 - 11:15 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) @TheThirdTurn, After Stewart passed Montoya, Ambrose was right there but couldn't make the pass and the 42 and 9 seemed to be even at that point even though Ambrose had run Montoya and Stewart down from a long way back. Ambrose was definitely the driver of the race in my opinion and it was his best complete weekend on an oval, although it wasn't his best oval finish(3rd at Bristol in '09 was his best). 35. Captain77 posted: 03.06.2011 - 11:44 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Landon Cassill has a sponsor, but he still does S&P. Brian Keselowski will run the full race with a sponsor or without a sponosr. Wouldnt it be smarter for Big Red to sponsor someone like Keselowski?? 36. 18fan posted: 03.06.2011 - 11:50 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Is this the first time two non-American drivers finished in the top 5 in an oval race? 37. hdawwwwg posted: 03.06.2011 - 11:59 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Is this the first time two non-American drivers finished in the top 5 in an oval race?" No. 38. Dodge posted: 03.07.2011 - 12:01 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) I wouldn't be surprised if we see all 4 HMS cars make the chase for the first time in their history. That will not happen. Jr. just hasn't had those dumb mistakes that he is prone to make. Give hime time, he'll fall off the ship. Also, who is surprised that Jr. wasn't the Pizza Hut Fan Favorite driver for the first time? I know I was surprised. 39. hdawwwwg posted: 03.07.2011 - 12:03 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) "It's amazing with this points system how far you fall with one bad race, like Jeff Gordon falling from 5th to 19th and Kyle Busch from 1st to 14th." There's a little truth to that, but it more-so has to do with it being very early in the season. The difference between this year and last year is minimal. If you have an awful finish in the first two or three races and you're pretty high in the points, the effect is always going to be huge. 40. RCRandPenskeGuy posted: 03.07.2011 - 12:59 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) I wonder if Edwards is going to be the top dog that everyone is going to be rooting for this year to knock Johnson off his throne, as it was in 2008. His rebound towards the end of his 2010 season was similar to his 2007 rebound after a winless 2006 season. I personally hope the result turns out the same as 2005 and 2008, with someone else taking home the Sprint Cup. Good strong runs for Ambrose, Truex and Vickers. I hope Ambrose can have yet another good run when we get to Bristol. He's been pretty good there during his Cup career. "That's a good point. The only thing I can come back with is Brad is still driving for the #12 team, which despite a 500 win hasn't been that great since 2006. A crew chief change isn't enough to fix that team as we saw today. If they had put Brad with the original #2 team then it would be a totally different story." If they'd put Brad with Kurt's team it would have likely screwed everything up. I'm a Brad fan and want to see him succeed, but that wouldn't have been fair to Kurt. Remember when RCR did it to Clint Bowyer in favor of Casey Mears? I agree with your statement about the crew chief not fixing anything, though. Three races in, it certainly looks like it could be a repeat of 2010. 41. 00andJoe posted: 03.07.2011 - 1:45 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) #35 - I think the Big Red 'sponsorship' on the #60 is like the Geico sponsorship was on the #13 last year - the decals are on the car at every race, but the money is only for certain races. So they start-and-park at certain events despite having the appearance of being fully sponsored. What's surprising to me is that Cassill, despite having a full-season ride (start-and-park or not) in Cup, still has the (i) after his name in the results that indicates he's still registered for the Nationwide championship... 42. Anonymous posted: 03.07.2011 - 5:10 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) ""Is this the first time two non-American drivers finished in the top 5 in an oval race?" No." Well then what race was the first time, genius? You know when someone asked a question like that and they are unsure, it would be customary to also provide the information, seeing as how you know and cared enough to post a reply. Or you could just be a dick about it. 43. leothedrummer posted: 03.07.2011 - 6:07 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Despite what others have said, I thought this was a pretty decent race. Sure, nothing out of the ordinary happened, but there was plenty of good racing all day, with lots of different drivers coming and going from the top 5. Was also interesting to see different strategies play out. Overall, it was probably about a 6/10 for me, but you honestly can't expect every race each week to be a nail biter, record setting screamer...when you do, that's when they start looking for ways to "make the racing more exciting" and that always spells trouble. Oh and I must add, it was brilliant seeing Kyle Busch blow up after getting what I felt was a pretty suss free pass. 44. DieselDan posted: 03.07.2011 - 9:00 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Race was so boring I switched to cycling on Versus. 45. Walter Sobchak posted: 03.07.2011 - 9:47 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Well, DieselDan, you're obviously not a real race fan, so you can just GTFO if you don't like it. 46. the_man posted: 03.07.2011 - 12:32 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) David Ragan on a 22nd place finish: "I felt like we had a better car than where we finished. We just never could play the pit strategy to get our track position, and every pit stop we were putting shims in and pulling rubbers out and working on the track bar, so our pit crew got their workout. We had a fast car and Iâ??m proud of our team, but the breaks didnâ??t fall the way we needed them to in order to get a top 10 or top 15." 47. Eric posted: 03.07.2011 - 1:23 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I think the 2008 Watkins Glen race was the first time that 2 foreigners finished in the top 5. Macros finished 3rd and JPM finished 4th in that race. 48. Anonymous posted: 03.07.2011 - 2:05 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "I think the 2008 Watkins Glen race was the first time that 2 foreigners finished in the top 5. Macros finished 3rd and JPM finished 4th in that race." That's great and everything, but the guy asked about OVALS. Still waiting for hdawwwwg to cough up that information. 49. CFob posted: 03.07.2011 - 3:16 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Based on my research, outside of Las Vegas last week Montoya and Ambrose have never both finished in the top five on an oval. As it is Ambrose has only gotten a top five on an oval four times (of eight career top five finishes). The last time overall was in 2010 at Watkins Glen, when Montoya won and Ambrose finished 3rd. 50. Anonymous posted: 03.07.2011 - 3:39 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Despite what others have said, I thought this was a pretty decent race. Sure, nothing out of the ordinary happened, but there was plenty of good racing all day, with lots of different drivers coming and going from the top 5. Was also interesting to see different strategies play out. Overall, it was probably about a 6/10 for me, but you honestly can't expect every race each week to be a nail biter, record setting screamer...when you do, that's when they start looking for ways to "make the racing more exciting" and that always spells trouble." When the fastest car all weekend blows a tire before lap 20 and cannot recover to finish better than 11th over the course of the entire race, something is wrong. The only reason there were lots of different drivers in the top 5 was because of different pit strategies. I'd rather see drivers pass each other than ride along in the position they were in on the restart. Not sure where the good racing was, but when the leader of the race, no matter who it is, has at least a one second lead for the whole event and no one can get close to him, something is very wrong indeed. I don't expect every race to be a nail biter but I do expect drivers to be able to race close enough to each other to pass. Like I said before, I've been a fan of this series since 1996 and I could count the number of races I have missed on my two hands with fingers to spare. I have also followed Indycar racing and Formula One for years as well. The race yesterday was one of the worst races I've ever seen, period. Saying all of that, it most likely was the track rather than the car, so you're right about not changing anything. Although I must say that back in the "glory days" (the 90s for most people), the cars were changed CONSTANTLY to make the manufacturers more even, so it is nothing new. 51. Anonymous posted: 03.07.2011 - 4:25 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Conspiracy Alert!: Does anyone else see the irony of Edwards winning on 3/6/2011? (3+6)11=99? 52. TimmyH posted: 03.07.2011 - 5:11 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Where is our resident driver psychologist and Cup car engineering expert, DaleSrFanForever's opinion on Kyle Busch this week? Let me guess, after he cut his tire, he purposely blew his engine because he was so frustrated? No wait, he didn't even cut his tire, he just ran his car into the wall on purpose because he was tired of driving it, and it gave him a good excuse to over-rev his engine until it blew? No hold on, that isn't it either. Let's see... there was no possible way he could have cut his tire at that point in the race (cut to DaleSrFanForever providing evidence of where other people cut tires, and why Busch's couldn't have been an accident), and because of the cut tire, Busch decided he didn't want to win a race at his home track, gave up, and during his pit stop his team put something in his fuel system that would blow the engine. There we go, nailed it. The perfect combination of crazy and stupid. And if anyone thinks this was excessive or unbelievable, check out DaleSrFanForever's comments on last week's race, particularly focusing on the end of the thread. The guy clearly knows all the inner workings of a drivers mind, including why they make every decision throughout a race, and when they are lying or telling the truth. He's also an expert on how the cars drive, and where and how it's possible to wreck on the track. I'm completely serious. He needs to be a race announcer, because he knows things the other announcers and even the drivers themselves don't know. -------------------------------------- And just to make sure I contribute something to the ongoing discussion of the thread. I predict Carl Edwards will 7 races this year and finish top 3 in the points. I also predict Kyle Busch will win 3 to 4 races, Dale Jr. wins 1, and Jeff Gordon wins 5. Jimmie Johnson finishes 1st or 2nd in the standings (going out on a limb on that one, I know). Hopefully I remember to come back to this thread at the end of the year to see if I'm right. 53. 00andJoe posted: 03.07.2011 - 5:38 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "When the fastest car all weekend blows a tire before lap 20 and cannot recover to finish better than 11th over the course of the entire race, something is wrong." Maybe it wasn't really the fastest car, especially after the blown tire? Biffle didn't waste any time getting past Kenseth, it might be remembered. "Although I must say that back in the "glory days" (the 90s for most people), the cars were changed CONSTANTLY to make the manufacturers more even, so it is nothing new." That heralded the end of the Glory Days, actually. IIRC it was at Richmond in the spring of '97 when Ford went on the Whine Diet about how the Thunderbird was inferior to the Monte Carlo, and got an adjustment. Which wound up making the T-birds superior. So Chevy went on the Whine Diet...and for the next couple of years it was Whack-A-Rule. (The Whine Diet also brought us the Taurus Coupe for NASCAR, never on the street, which ended even the facade of being "stock cars". On that note: anybody else remember the Kranefuss-Hass Hot Rod Lincoln?) The "Glory Years" were, roughly, 1992-1996. They probably extend earlier, but certainly not later. 54. Eric posted: 03.07.2011 - 5:52 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) While I started following Nascar in 1993, the truth is the Glory years were not in the late 1990's. I remembered that era. There a lot of politicking in terms of drivers and owners (Including Dale Earnhardt Sr.)for new noses for the make of car. The cars in the late 1990's had areo push problems on big tracks such as Michigan and Indy. I started to follow Nascar just shortly before the end of the glory years of it. I thought the glory years ended around 1995 or 1996. I brought up 1995 because Indy had big problems in terms of aero. 55. Talon64 posted: 03.07.2011 - 5:59 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Another race that Tony Stewart dominates only to lose out in the end. Aero was a such a factor that I don't know why they took 4 tires at the end, he had a 3+ second lead when the final pit stops started and the left sides probably would've held on long enough for him to coast to the win. But it was the pit road penalty with the air hose that really ended up costing them by putting them in that situation. And the aero push in this race was huge, anybody who got out front was going to just pull away. So far Tony and Carl have really separated themselves. Kurt's up there with consistency, only guy with top tens in first 3 races, but both Tony and Carl were in contention to win each of the first 3 races. And Newman's had a surprisingly good start to the season, which is made even better considering how many pre-season contenders have had a really rough start to the year. This is the 3rdnd time in Carl's career that he's won 3 times in a 5 race stretch (in 2008 he had 2 stretches of 3 wins in 4 races). Jack Roush gets his 7th Cup win at Las Vegas (1 with Mark Martin, 2 with Jeff Burton, 2 with Matt Kenseth, 2 with Carl Edwards). Tony Stewart finishes 2nd in a Cup race for the 39th time in his career, ranked 14th all time and 4th among active drivers. At a track where he had a 27.25 average finish in 4 starts coming in, JPM finishes 3rd. This is the 2nd straight top five for the #9 Richard Petty Motorsports team at an intermediate but with different drivers; Aric Almirola finished 4th at Homestead last season. This is just the 5th time since 2006 that Ryan Newman's had back-to-back top 5 finishes (had 4 in a row in 2009), and it's the 4th time that both Stewart Haas Racing cars have finished in the top 5. It's just his 2nd top five in 11 Las Vegas starts. This is just Martin Truex Jr.'s 4th top ten in the last 29 races dating back to last season; he's gone 33 races without a top five. It's his first top ten in 6 Las Vegas starts. Denny Hamlin gets his first top 10 of the season. In the first 5 races of each of the last 5 seasons Denny has combined for only 2 top fives and 6 top tens in 25 starts. Dale Jr. has back-to-back top tens for just the 3rd time since 2009. It's his 3rd top ten in the last 4 Vegas races and 5th top ten overall in 12 starts. Kurt Busch is the only driver with top tens in the first 3 races of 2011, and it's the 2nd time in his career he's done it; in 2005 he started off the season with 3 straight top 3 finishes. It's only his 3rd top ten in 11 Las Vegas starts but it's the first time that he's started outside of the top 10 (5.2 average finish coming into this race). Brian Vickers gets his first top 10 since returning to action after his medical problems, but technically it's his 2nd top ten in his last 4 starts. It's his 2nd top ten in 7 Las Vegas starts. Matt Kenseth won just his 5th career pole, first since Darlington in 2009. This weekend was also the first time he'd finished 1st in a practice session since this race 3 years ago. This is the 2nd straight year that Paul Menard's started the season with 3 straight top 20 finishes, but last year he was only 17th in points while this season he's 6th. Jimmie Johnson has a track-record 4 wins at Las Vegas but still has only one other top ten finish in 10 Las Vegas starts; it's his 3rd finish outside the top 15 in his last 4 starts there. Trevor Bayne gets his 3rd top 20 finish in 4 career Cup starts, but probably would've had a top 15 if Matt Kenseth hadn't bumped him and put him into the wall. Andy Lally was the only rookie in the race since BriKes missed the show; he finished 32nd. 56. Smokefan05 posted: 03.07.2011 - 6:06 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I started following NASCAR in 1993 like post #54 states. Of course i remember the politicking going on (mostly by Jack Roush but everyone else did try too) And people today think that NASCAR made up rules to make stuff closer, HA!!!!!! They did back then too, so i don't want to hear about it. ;-O post #52, apprently you've taken what DSFF says personally, i suggest you try ignore him and move on with your life. To end this post on a postive note, ratings up for this race 29%. So far, every race this year has been up but well shall see (in a short term sense) if it'll continue when: 1. March Madness start (go Duke. :-PPPPPPPP) 2. When the 48 starts winning again. 57. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.07.2011 - 7:04 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Dodge, you touched on something I wanted to talk about but forgot to: Jeff Gordon being the Pizza Hut fan favorite. Unbelieveable! A week after everyone was universally happy Jeff won a race, and now he's the fan favotire? I never thought I'd see the day. The aero issues actually started in 1995 when Chevrolet came out with the new Monte Carlo. If you get a chance, compare the 1994 Brickyard 400 to the 1995 Brickyard 400. In '94, the racing was awesome, cars racing each other, and ending with Jeff Gordon and Ernie Irvan putting on one hell of a show, passing each other every 3 laps or so. Unfortunately Ernie cut a tire and robbed us of a potentially epic finish, but that was a great race. But one year later with the new sleeker cars, the 1995 Brickyard 400 set the tone for pretty much every Brickyard 400 that has followed it: It sucked (and this ME saying this, Dale won!). Cars were rocket ships out front and junk in traffic. They could get to about two car lenghts of the car ahead of them, then lost the nose. Gordon started on the pole and checked out. Then he fell back in traffic around halfway and was never heard from again. Then Rusty took off out front and was unpassable. But under the last pit stops he had to make a slight hesitation leaving pit road to avoid a rolling tire. That allowed Dale to get ahead of him and that was it. Rusty chrged to within two car lengths of Dale's bumper quickly, then stalled out. DJ ran them both down in a big hurry, got to within 2 car lengths of Rusty's bumper, then stalled out. Overall the race sucked and nobody could race each other. It's been downhill since. 58. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.07.2011 - 7:08 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "1. March Madness start (go Duke. :-PPPPPPPP)" You're a dook fan? Ugh. "post #52, apprently you've taken what DSFF says personally, i suggest you try ignore him and move on with your life." Nah. He's a troll. He can't ignore me. He is my creepy stalker. I think he may be the same "anonymous" guy that shadowed me everywhere. Kinda funny. 59. Anonymous posted: 03.07.2011 - 7:12 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "post #52, apprently you've taken what DSFF says personally, i suggest you try ignore him and move on with your life." Ha, yeah Tim you're going to find out real quickly that DSFF is as stubborn as a mule and dumb as one to boot. It's not worth getting upset over anything he says, because most of it just biased garbage anyway. Anyone else pissed that there is no race next week? I don't know why NASCAR thought it would be a good idea to kill all the early season momentum by always having a bye week after 3 or 4 races. They're finally changing it next year though. On the plus side, everybody on the Bayne bandwagon can watch that special FOX retrospective about his so-called "biggest upset in history" Daytona 500 win next weekend. I'm already sick of Trevor Bayne. I don't care for his clean-cut, vanilla, corporate, overtly christian image, or his "i just got done shopping at abercrombie & fitch" look. He got lucky, being at the right place at the right time, with the right push, and the right block, and the right number of GWC's. If he wasn't driving for the Wood Brothers, I'd actively root against him. I don't think the sport needs to prop up yet another boring, corporate friendly personality as the so-called "hero" of the sport. But hey that's just me. I like a rough around the edges pure racer who speaks his mind. Why yes, I'm a Tony Stewart fan, why do you ask? 60. Talon64 posted: 03.07.2011 - 7:21 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Dodge, you touched on something I wanted to talk about but forgot to: Jeff Gordon being the Pizza Hut fan favorite. Unbelieveable! A week after everyone was universally happy Jeff won a race, and now he's the fan favotire? I never thought I'd see the day." Dale Jr. wasn't on the ballot last week, that's why he didn't win. Although Jeff handily beat the guys he was up against. 61. TimmyH posted: 03.07.2011 - 7:22 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Nah. He's a troll. He can't ignore me. He is my creepy stalker. I think he may be the same "anonymous" guy that shadowed me everywhere. Kinda funny." I don't know what the hell you are talking about. I have been TimmyH since my first post towards the end of last season. And I could easily ignore you. In fact I should take smokefan's advice and stop paying attention to everything you say, because it clearly doesn't seem to be worthy my time. Others are interested in a rational discussion. You seem to find enjoyment saying the dumbest things you possibly can and passing them off as facts. And the only thing "funny" was your flimsy arguments about Kyle Busch last week. 62. Smokefan05 posted: 03.07.2011 - 9:17 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "You're a dook fan? Ugh." Nope i'm not but if i posted that i knew you post respond. lol I don't mean to poke fun at you. I'm actually a UofM fan but i respect what what Coach K has done. 63. RCRandPenskeGuy posted: 03.08.2011 - 12:36 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Dodge, you touched on something I wanted to talk about but forgot to: Jeff Gordon being the Pizza Hut fan favorite. Unbelieveable! A week after everyone was universally happy Jeff won a race, and now he's the fan favotire? I never thought I'd see the day." That's because according to most fans I've spoken to, he's "found his place" as a respected veteran. When I first started watching the sport, I didn't even dislike Jeff but I still rooted against him on Sundays because he was dominating pretty much every week. Brian Vickers scores his first top 10 finish since his return from the sidelines. 64. 00andJoe posted: 03.08.2011 - 1:15 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) #56/57 - After I posted that I realised it was '96 when the Whine set in - Richmond '97 was when the "they're taking our T-Birds away" announcement was made. I didn't see the '95 Brickyard (my first race watched was '95 August Bristol - needless to say, the finish had me hooked for life) but yeah, the introduction of the "round" cars heraled the aero problems. For all its being reviled, the CoT HAS reduced the aero problem, it seems - it clearly hasn't gone away (exhibit A, this race) but the "aero push" doesn't seem nearly as bad as it used to be. The true solution is, of course, square cars again - the new BGN cars are a step in the right direction, IMHO (Phoenix notwithstanding). 65. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.08.2011 - 10:31 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) "The true solution is, of course, square cars again" That is an excellent point, and that is part 1 of the solution for better racing. The other part is getting the noses of these cars off the ground. The problem with the low noses is that they rely on clean air to press the nose to the ground, eliminate air from getting under the car, which provides for optimum handling. A car in aonther car's wake, however, doesn't get that air because the car in front has pushed it out of the way. They can't get their nose to press to the ground, air gets under the car and disrupts the handling. Therefore they need to get all car's noses off the ground. Then the front car will be on much more equal terms of handling. Obviously the wind kicked back to the car behind has always been, and always will be a factor. But lifting the fronts of the cars would help immensely, as well as squaring the noses, as you mentioned 00andJoe. Even if the noses are off the ground, a sleek car will have a ton of issues in traffic. 66. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.08.2011 - 10:39 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Ha, yeah Tim you're going to find out real quickly that DSFF is as stubborn as a mule and dumb as one to boot. It's not worth getting upset over anything he says, because most of it just biased garbage anyway." It is so not worth getting upset that you respond to me every week with grade school insults. If I'm so stupid and not worth getting riled up about, why do you follow me on this board closer than my own shadow? "And I could easily ignore you." But you don't want to ignore me because it would defeat your purpose of being here. " In fact I should take smokefan's advice and stop paying attention to everything you say, because it clearly doesn't seem to be worthy my time." Yet you have devoted a ton of time to me over the past two weeks, throwing every grade school insult you can think of at me. So am I really "clearly" not worthy of your time? Clear as mud I guess. "And the only thing "funny" was your flimsy arguments about Kyle Busch last week." It was so flimsy that I provided links to video tape replays, exact times on those replays which showed my points, mentioned previous examples that correlate to the point of discussion, while you just called me names and did your whole "I don't even need to respond to you" posturing while posting extensive rants against me. Face it Timmy. I am in your head like JJ was in Denny's head at the end of last year. 67. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.08.2011 - 10:40 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Nope i'm not but if i posted that i knew you post respond. lol I don't mean to poke fun at you. I'm actually a UofM fan but i respect what what Coach K has done." Lol. I fell for that one hook, line, and sinker. 68. TheThirdTurn posted: 03.08.2011 - 1:34 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Ummmm, best press release ever from Kevin Conway this morning: "I don't mind stiff competition, but I want to make sure the hard facts are told" I really hope those terrible puns were intentional. 69. TimmyH posted: 03.08.2011 - 1:58 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "It was so flimsy that I provided links to video tape replays, exact times on those replays which showed my points, mentioned previous examples that correlate to the point of discussion, while you just called me names and did your whole "I don't even need to respond to you" posturing while posting extensive rants against me. Face it Timmy. I am in your head like JJ was in Denny's head at the end of last year." You mean all those examples that I countered with logic? We're talking about your same arguments that were based entirely on assumptions, right? The same ones I subsequently destroyed, repeatedly, with facts and rational thinking? By the end you were reaching so far up your own ass for something resembling a point that you were touching your brain. Face it, you lost that argument. And if anyone doesn't believe me, go back and read last week's race thread. It's all there. But then again I'm sure the people here are used to seeing you get your ass handed to you on a silver platter, if that was your best effort. 70. Sean posted: 03.08.2011 - 2:01 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Regarding foreign drivers, from my research there have been 71 foreign or arguably foreign drivers to start in Cup. By arguably foreign, I am referring primarily to Mario Andretti who was born in then-Italy, now-Croatia, but was naturalized and became fully American later. A very small percentage of those (7: Marcos Ambrose, Mario Andretti, Eduardo Dibos, Ron Fellows, Juan Pablo Montoya, Jackie Oliver, and Pedro Rodriguez) have actually scored top 5s in Cup. I am not counting Frank Mundy (aka Francisco Menendez) because he was born in the US, even if he was the first minority winner). Andretti, Oliver, and Rodriguez only scored a top five once, Dibos only did so twice (and there were no other foreigners in any of the top five in any of those races), and Fellows only did so three times, and can be ruled out since they were all on road courses - all at Watkins Glen, actually. That leaves the two drivers who were somewhat more prolific in scoring top 5s: Ambrose and Montoya. Since it was already proven that this was the first time they were in a top five together, the answer is yes, this was the first time two drivers scored a top five in a Cup race on an oval. Certainly not on an oval period if you count IndyCar, Champ Car, the Canadian and Mexican NASCAR divisions, and probably IROC... But in Cup, yes, this was the first time. 71. Anonymous posted: 03.08.2011 - 2:05 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "That leaves the two drivers who were somewhat more prolific in scoring top 5s: Ambrose and Montoya. Since it was already proven that this was the first time they were in a top five together, the answer is yes, this was the first time two drivers scored a top five in a Cup race on an oval. Certainly not on an oval period if you count IndyCar, Champ Car, the Canadian and Mexican NASCAR divisions, and probably IROC... But in Cup, yes, this was the first time. " Thank you! I had a feeling that it had never happened before, but I wanted to see hdawwwwg admit his mistake. He probably didn't see the word "OVALS" in the original question, but that doesn't excuse his rudeness. 72. TimmyH posted: 03.08.2011 - 2:12 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) By the way DaleSrFanForever, if you really think you came out ahead in that argument last week, how come you never gave any sort of rebuttal after I absolutely annihilated your last post? Got nothing? Or did you think you could just move on, let everyone forget about it, and then act all smug in the next week's race thread like you somehow won? That's pretty pathetic, but that's exactly what you're doing. Seems like I'm the one that's in your head. Suddenly you can't just throw out a bunch of trash and act like it's the truth just because you said so. 73. CFob posted: 03.08.2011 - 2:34 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "By the way DaleSrFanForever, if you really think you came out ahead in that argument last week, how come you never gave any sort of rebuttal after I absolutely annihilated your last post? Got nothing? Or did you think you could just move on, let everyone forget about it, and then act all smug in the next week's race thread like you somehow won? That's pretty pathetic, but that's exactly what you're doing. Seems like I'm the one that's in your head. Suddenly you can't just throw out a bunch of trash and act like it's the truth just because you said so." If you have to tell someone you annihilated them in an argument, chances are you didn't. 74. TimmyH posted: 03.08.2011 - 2:41 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "If you have to tell someone you annihilated them in an argument, chances are you didn't." See for yourself. The evidence is just a couple mouse clicks away. 75. Sean posted: 03.08.2011 - 2:54 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) NASCAR purists will generally argue that 1996 was the last great season because North Wilkesboro was on the schedule and Texas and California weren't. I would go one year later, and I'll explain why. Although California has always been dull, and Texas slightly less so, I think the racing was still pretty great in 1997. That season had the Daytona 500 where Gordon made that daring pass and Earnhardt finished the race in his flipped car; the fireworks at Richmond between G. Bodine/R. Wallace (and also Irvan/J. Gordon), ditto at Bristol when J. Gordon pulled the bump-and-run on Wallace. Both Darlington races were great with Jarrett/Musgrave's photo finish, and Jeff Burton's (wussy) charge on Gordon in the Southern 500. Irvan's win at Michigan was highly competitive and memorable, Jarrett's win at Phoenix when he came back from nearly a lap down to win was his best driving performance ever and fun to watch... Bottom line, I think there were more highly memorable races in 1997 than any year since (by far), and more actually than some of the previous seasons like 1996 which didn't seem to have as many memorable races to me. 1997 also boasted the last great pre-chase title fight (in my opinion, nobody really deserved the 2002 title and it was more a matter of who was the least bad). I think 1997 deserves to be considered part of the classic period, even though the roots of some very bad trends had already begun to emerge around 1995, they didn't descend into full-out suckage until 1998. 1998 would get my vote as when NASCAR "jumped the shark" and turned to shit, for a great multitude of reasons. The most important was the flat-out dismal 5-and-5 rule that killed the racing not only on the superspeedways but pretty much everywhere else too (yes, I know NASCAR had adopted this before in 1993 at Charlotte but quickly repealed it after Irvan's slaughter of the field). Almost every race in '98 was a single-file parade that was decided in the pits, and I count only three memorable races, a sharp decline from any of the previous 15 seasons really: Earnhardt's win at Daytona (which was a dog of a race and only notable because Earnhardt hadn't won one yet), and both Richmond races. The first Richmond race was memorable and sort of fun but strictly in a guilty-pleasure way much like any decent races that might happen now. Everything up to Wallace's hard punt of Gordon near the end of the race was great, but then the fans cheering before it was clear Gordon was all right were the roots of the moronic fans throwing stuff on the track, the track conditions were dreadful causing several more wrecks in a row, the "phony red flag" was introduced to ensure a green flag finish (REALLY pissing off Dale Jarrett), which in my opinion is when NASCAR's in-race gimmicks started, and most of the drivers weren't sure if the finish of the race was under green or under yellow, like so many of the post-freezing-the-field races in the past few years. That one race itself, while it was memorable, introduced an AWFUL lot of crap that would just be added to in subsequent years. The fall Richmond race with that great battle between Jeff Burton/Jeff Gordon was fantastic, but not enough to save the season. Aero push was everywhere, even places like Loudon where it would not have been seen from 1993-1997. Oh, I forgot Rudd's win at Martinsville. That one WAS a classic in a throwback sense, even though that was a single-file parade as well just like most of that season. So two good races: fall Martinsville (solely due to Rudd's brilliant performance) and fall Richmond, and that's it. There are many other reasons why I hate 1998 so much, especially in comparison to 1997 which I think was great (although I'll admit less great than '90-'95 were). That was the year when owner-drivers and single-car teams became irrelevant in general. In '97, Andretti, Rudd, B. Labonte, and R. Wallace all won races for single-car teams, and G. Bodine and Elliott had some good runs as owner-drivers, with Elliott finishing top ten in the points. In '98, single-car winners were reduced to just Hamilton and Rudd at the two Martinsville races (where horsepower is probably least important), and B. Labonte in Gibbs's last season as a single-car team. Rudd was invisible otherwise, as was Elliott, who fell hard. That, coupled with Roush going up to 5 cars (unheard of in the modern era), pretty much marks the season when the independents completely collapsed. Hell, Bodine and Waltrip sold their teams at that point. Now add onto that the sharply increased commercialism of the sport and the drivers. 1998 in addition to marking the introduction of racing gimmicks, aero push on every track, and the fall of the independents, also was when NASCAR's marketing hit overdrive and excess with the "50th Anniversary" and (especially) "NASCAR's Night in Hollywood" (which was probably the moment when NASCAR's marketing clearly became TOO MUCH for the common fans). The drivers themselves became more commercial at about that time too, perhaps being spurred by Ernie Irvan being (arguably) the first driver fired due to not being sponsor-friendly rather than due to his performance (as a result of his barroom brawl). I think this event is underrated historically and had the effect of drivers trying not to say or do anything controversial. (It's also the event that caused me to hate Robert Yates so much, and considering what he did to Rudd, Gilliland, Kvapil, Leicht, Robby Gordon, and Newman-Haas later, it's hard to imagine why anyone likes Yates, and I'm actually happy Yates is gone...) Gordon provided the example for what to do to attract sponsors (ironic, since he was almost unsponsored this year since most of the drivers since have been even bigger corporate schmoozers than he was), while Irvan provided the example of what not to do. And although there have certainly been mouthy punks since, they still know how to play the sponsor's game in a way the prior generations didn't, and that has certainly hurt the sport's personalities. Even relatively minor things like ESPN's coverage (which took a NOSEDIVE as they basically stopped caring about anything other than NASCAR, preferring to chat with some mediocre driver like Kenny Wallace after a Cup race instead of acknowledging F1, CART, IRL, NHRA, World of Outlaws, whatever, at all on RPM2Night, which also started sucking around that time...) and Winston replacing the Winston Million with the tackier No Bull 5 (then allowing just any old race to be a part of the latter) added to the garbage. I know, dating all these trends to 1998 may be misguided, as aero push, multi-car teams, racing gimmicks, increasing marketing, and increasingly corporate drivers were all trends that were already emerging, but I think '98 was the tipping point for all of these trends that started to make NASCAR unwatchable. Anything through '97 = good, anything '98-since = generally bad. 1999 and 2001-2003 were certainly improvements by '98 standards, but not up to the pre-'98 standard. At least '99 had a few more memorable races and fewer gimmicks, and '01-'03 had a few great finishes and a wave of underdog winners. Obviously, the Nextel/Sprint era is complete unadulterated crap, although there are still some good races sometimes. 2000 was just as bad as 1998 pre-chase given the stuck-throttle deaths, the Loudon fall race restrictor-plate fiasco in response, a string of very boring races, very little interesting or unexpected, and the fall Talladega race (which seemingly only I think was garbage). It is hyped because it was Earnhardt's last win, but I think it's the moment when plate racing ceased having ANYTHING to do with driving talent. People hype Earnhardt's 16th-1st in four laps, but forget that this is the same race where NASCAR changed the restrictor plate size the night before the race (in one of the biggest gimmicks ever at that time), allowing Dave Marcis to drive from 9th to 1st in the first two laps, Jeff Gordon to go from 43rd to 1st in 11 (if I'm remembering correctly, which I'm probably not), and pretty much allowed any driver who caught a lucky draft to lead, regardless of talent or the strength of the car. Earnhardt had a lot of great plate performances, but in my opinion, that particular one was sheer luck, not skill. Pretty much everyone was in every part of the field at any time in that race. And that was the package that allowed Michael Waltrip to win the Daytona 500, and Earnhardt to die, let's not forget. As for NASCAR continuing to get more popular from about 1998-2002, that was a "rally to the winner" effect. There was still enough lingering remembrance of the classic racing from 1985-1997 (which I would call the classic period) to keep fans excited, at least until that generation's stars became irrelevant after 2002-2003. When the current generation took over around 2003, most of the established fans stopped caring especially since a whole new wave of gimmicks was introduced. Let's give '96 and '97 some credit, okay? They were great seasons too. '98 was when NASCAR fell off a cliff never to return. 76. Sean posted: 03.08.2011 - 2:59 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) For the sake of record, I forgot one foreign driver who had top five finishes: Canadian Earl Ross, who had 5 top five finishes in his 1974 rookie season as a teammate to Cale Yarborough, but the other top five finishers were only Americans in those races too... 77. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.08.2011 - 5:06 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Excellent points Sean! According to you, 1997 was the high water mark of the classic era of Nascar. A close championship battle, memorable races, etc. I happen to agree with many of your arguments, but the "gimmick" of the NoBull 5 was in all actuality a great program. Why? Certain drivers like Gordon, Jarrett, Bill Elliot(Winston Million) etc. would rise to the occasion and exhibit the qualities of champions and cement their racing legacies in a way the current generation of drivers like the Buschs, Newman, etc. have not. Why do we on these boards constantly debate the merits of driver A compared to driver B, when there is no added incentive for drivers to win big races post Winston era? I enjoyed the format of five drivers, five fans and five races, but Winston should have kept the core Winston Million alive too. Sprint needs a similar program that will separate the contenders from the pretenders. Has anyone noticed the absolute crap shoot the Daytona 500 has been since 2001? It seems prior to '01, the 500 was won by legends, champions, drivers with the best superspeedway equipment, etc. with the occasional surprise like '90 thrown in. Now, almost every year has a surprise/unlikely winner. Should Nascar install a Winston Million/NoBull 5 style program, it is likely only a few would win it. In twelve years, the Winston Million was won only twice. Another thing, in '97 Gordon won it, but had to dig deep late in the season to win the Winston Cup with Jarrett and Martin within 20 points of him. Aside from rambling, my whole point is drivers in the classic era (1985-1997 according to Sean) had the big races to prove themselves worthy of recognition and greatness. Since the introduction of the gimmicky Chase, the only barometer of success for a Cup driver it seems is making the Chase. Newer fans probably don't remember Jeff Gordon winning the Winston Million in '97 or Jeff Burton winning the Winston NoBull 5 three times (2 due to rain) between '99-'00. The prevailing attitude today is, if (race, track, or driver) its not in the Chase, it is not worthy of serious consideration or importance. But, I digress. Nostalgia is better than Chicken Soup for the Soul! 78. Smokefan05 posted: 03.08.2011 - 5:10 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Nostalgia is better than Chicken Soup for the Soul!" True but Chicken Soup is good for the stomach. :-P 79. Talon64 posted: 03.08.2011 - 5:20 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Has anyone noticed the absolute crap shoot the Daytona 500 has been since 2001? It seems prior to '01, the 500 was won by legends, champions, drivers with the best superspeedway equipment, etc. with the occasional surprise like '90 thrown in. Now, almost every year has a surprise/unlikely winner. Should Nascar install a Winston Million/NoBull 5 style program, it is likely only a few would win it. In twelve years, the Winston Million was won only twice. Another thing, in '97 Gordon won it, but had to dig deep late in the season to win the Winston Cup with Jarrett and Martin within 20 points of him." More like the last 6 years; DEI had 3 wins in 4 years with their dominant superspeedway cars and Jeff Gordon won his 3rd Daytona 500 in 2005. In 2006 Jimmie didn't hadn't won a championship yet and his plate record has always sucked other than that year when he won the 500 and at Talladega; Harvick's Daytona record wasn't all that great before he won in 2007 and Newman in 2008 was probably the biggest shocker at the time considering he's a guarantee to wreck everytime they slap on the plates. Kenseth in 2009 was alright, former champion who's been an underrated plate racer. McMurray already had 2 plate wins in the last 3 seasons to his credit and made it 3 with 2 different teams in the Daytona 500, plus the RCR/EGR teams showed that they're the new DEI now in terms of plate prowess. But Trevor Bayne this season with the Wood Brothers was a racing miracle that came out of freaking nowhere. Meanwhile you've got Kurt Busch and Tony Stewart who're by far the two best active drivers without a Daytona 500 win, both in their career and in their plate track records. 80. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.08.2011 - 5:37 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "It is so not worth getting upset that you respond to me every week with grade school insults. If I'm so stupid and not worth getting riled up about, why do you follow me on this board closer than my own shadow?" Now, that is a question DSFF. Maybe Timmy dislikes Panthers fans or North Carolinians. I've come to the conclusion no site is safe from trolling and the Internet is all human knowledge in no particular order. We accept the risk and use these pseudonyms as historical figures did centuries ago in correspondence with our fellow humans. 81. Smokefan05 posted: 03.08.2011 - 6:56 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Meanwhile you've got Kurt Busch and Tony Stewart who're by far the two best active drivers without a Daytona 500 win, both in their career and in their plate track records." It is also a wounder as too why no one helps them. Both are excellent plate racers who know who too get to the front and yet no one helps and stays with them. I could say the same for a couple of other drivers as well. 82. Anonymous posted: 03.08.2011 - 8:27 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Carl's sponsor for this race was Scotts EZ Seed. 83. Sean posted: 03.08.2011 - 8:43 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "According to you, 1997 was the high water mark of the classic era of Nascar."-Jarrett88Fan I wouldn't say that 1997 was the high water mark of NASCAR. I think it was the last great - maybe even good - season, but I'd say 1990-1995 were slightly better. 1996 and 1997 were a slight decline, but barely noticeable, and 1997 was slightly worse because of Texas and California replacing North Wilkesboro. "I happen to agree with many of your arguments, but the "gimmick" of the NoBull 5 was in all actuality a great program." Oh, I loved the Winston Million. Winning 3/4 specific races is extremely difficult, added great drama, and gave more attention to the marquee races besides Daytona. I think the No Bull 5 replacement was crap because it became too easy to win when all you had to do was finish in the top five in the previous race...I guess I felt $1,000,000 should be harder than that. Also, I did not like it that they gradually changed the races to be Las Vegas, Richmond, and the summer Daytona race. Las Vegas is not and will never be marquee, Richmond's a fantastic track but was never considered a Crown Jewel, and the Daytona 400-miler isn't marquee either. I wouldn't be seriously complaining about the No Bull 5 if they had just kept it as the Daytona 500, Talladega, Charlotte, Indianapolis, and Darlington every year... "Has anyone noticed the absolute crap shoot the Daytona 500 has been since 2001?" Yes. Totally agree. Like I said, I date it to the 2000 fall Talladega race (Earnhardt's last win) with the wicker bills, which literally allowed anyone to pass anyone and removed any semblance of talent from the race. Sure, the DEI cars stomped on the next four seasons because they had by far the best package (though strangely not the #1, which is too bad since I always thought Steve Park was the best of the three drivers; of course, his Darlington injury came before most of DEI's dominant period on the plate tracks, I guess). Usually in previous years at Daytona when you had mediocre drivers in top cars (Kenny Irwin and Mike Skinner, for instance), they contended on plate tracks but didn't actually win. Michael Waltrip changed all that and it was all over... And sure Talon there have been great drivers winning plate races still, but it's mainly because they're in the best cars. It has little if anything to do with their talent on plate racing. "The prevailing attitude today is, if (race, track, or driver) its not in the Chase, it is not worthy of serious consideration or importance. But, I digress." Yeah, that bothers me. I'd take Jamie McMurray's 2010 season over all but about five other drivers, maybe even Harvick's... While I don't think any Daytona win is very special anymore, his Brickyard win sure is, as that winner's list is freaking elite (and I think Indy is one of the best talent indicators generally...) 84. hdawwwwg posted: 03.08.2011 - 11:45 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Well then what race was the first time, genius? You know when someone asked a question like that and they are unsure, it would be customary to also provide the information, seeing as how you know and cared enough to post a reply. Or you could just be a dick about it." Or YOU could just be a dick about it. I don't know the what race was the first time, but considering it has happened multiple times in the last year alone, this isn't the first. 85. Watto posted: 03.08.2011 - 11:51 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "When the fastest car all weekend blows a tire before lap 20 and cannot recover to finish better than 11th over the course of the entire race, something is wrong" That's mostly due to him not being in position to get the lucky dog until late in the going. I don't see why people are calling this race one of the worst races ever, it seemed pretty normal for a cookie cutter. I sure am glad that they gave this track higher banking :( 86. hdawwwwg posted: 03.08.2011 - 11:58 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "He probably didn't see the word "OVALS" in the original question" No, I didn't see the word "Cup"; mostly because it wasn't in the question. 87. Anonymous posted: 03.09.2011 - 5:52 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) "No, I didn't see the word "Cup"; mostly because it wasn't in the question." Geez, must have been tough to figure that part out. It's not like it just happened in a CUP race, and we're talking about it on the CUP page, with questions related to CUP racing. It's called context, look it up. "I don't know the what race was the first time, but considering it has happened multiple times in the last year alone, this isn't the first." Multiple times? WTF series are you even talking about? It's not like we're talking about the Canadian Tire series here. 88. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.09.2011 - 2:22 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "I wouldn't be seriously complaining about the No Bull 5 if they had just kept it as the Daytona 500, Talladega, Charlotte, Indianapolis, and Darlington every year..." Exactly, the 1998 and '99 five tracks was the best and '01 and'02 selection the worst. I should have clarified my position. I'll take the four old Winston Million races and add Indy or heck even Richmond or Martinsville, with the goal of winning any two races for a million dollars. Widen the pool (top 5 in 5 races), but narrow the focus on winning any two out of five. However, I would keep the fan eligibility component intact. 89. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.09.2011 - 3:44 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Those are exellent points Sean. Especially about the "5 and 5" rule. And I'm also glad you mentioned "the Earnhardt effect" and the way his accomplishments tend to overshadow everything out. The 1998 Daytona 500, in my opinion, trails only the 2000 version as the worst Daytona 500 I can remember. It's just that so many of us had our pulses pounding wondering if this would finally be Dale's year or would his bad luck continue to haunt him. But it is horrible race to rewatch except for the last 10 laps and the emotional post race. I guess it is just a cumulative effect. You are right, '96 and '97 had pretty good racing. It is just 1995 set the wheels in motion with the sleek new Monte Carlo. A few years ago ESPN Classic was playing a lot of old Brickyard 400 races, and I couldn't help but notice how the '94 version had outstanding racing, lots of passing, and a should've been legendary finish (hurt by Irvan cutting the tire) with visibly boxier cars with squarer noses. The next year, with the sleek Monte Carlo, the modern aero push was first seen. But I agree, 1998 was the point where it really tipped over for good. Most memorable finishes since have either been at plate races with the roof strips of the boxier COT (the only type of track the COT actually improved racing at), or at the short tracks, quirky tracks, or tire grinding tracks (Darlington '03, Rockingham '03 and '04, Martinsville '07, Bristol Night '02, Atlanta '00, '01, '05) 90. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.09.2011 - 3:48 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "If you have to tell someone you annihilated them in an argument, chances are you didn't." Exactly. And for the record, I never go back to a previous race's thread. I also don't argue with trolls once I figure out they are trolls except to point out and laugh at the way they follow me and respond to everything and throw out insults that were lame by the time I got to the 8th grade. I really find the whole thing quite amusing. 91. Anonymous posted: 03.09.2011 - 5:16 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Greg Biffle's plane skids a stop on runway due to mechanical issues problems. Greg Biffle didn't get hurt. Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/nascar/cup/news/story?id=6198214 92. RR posted: 03.09.2011 - 7:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) If 1998 was the year in which NASCAR jumped the shark, I'd argue 2000 was the year the shark completely dismembered the jumper. While NASCAR had dipped their toes in the commercialization waters in the previous years, 2000 was the year they dove in head first. Most of these occurrences took place off the track, but they nevertheless affected the races themselves as well as the way NASCAR was presented. In the 1999-2000 off-season, NASCAR signed its gigantic TV deal with FOX, NBC, and Turner. If anything, this signified that NASCAR was going full speed ahead to try and capture the mythical "casual fan." The Fox hype machine would install their bells and whistles, creating the noisy telecasts which we're subjected to today. And wouldnâ??t you know, Fox began their run pissing off many sponsors and owners by removing the logos of companies that didnâ??t buy ads from their computerized starting lineup cars. At Speedweeks that year, NASCAR announced a change in policy. In handing out media credentials, NASCAR included new regulations which stated that any video, audio, quote, picture, etc. that was taken at a NASCAR event was owned by NASCAR. It was an obvious attempt by NASCAR to control what the members of the media said about NASCAR. While it wasnâ??t the first time NASCAR made a power gab, this would foreshadow both the arrogance and shortsightedness that personified NASCAR in the oughts. Iâ??d also make the point that the sponsorship deals signed in 2000 (specifically Roushâ??s deal with Viagra/Pfizer and Yatesâ?? deal with UPS) begat the era of unsustainable sponsorship deals and skyrocketing costs which directly contributed to the oligarchy of dominant teams we have. 93. CarlEdwards99 posted: 03.09.2011 - 7:13 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) " guess it is just a cumulative effect. You are right, '96 and '97 had pretty good racing. It is just 1995 set the wheels in motion with the sleek new Monte Carlo..................But I agree, 1998 was the point where it really tipped over for good. " There is a connection between those 2 seasons. Just as 1995 was when chevy went to the aero dependent Monte Carlo (as you point out), 1998 was when ford switched to the aero dependent Taurus. So basically like you said, 1995 was when the wheels were set in motion, and by 1998, EVERYBODY had a aero dependent car. Aero dependency is the #1 reason for NASCAR's down fall the last 15 years from the "golden age" of the 80's to mid 90's. 94. Bronco posted: 03.09.2011 - 7:56 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "You'll have your bad races with the good, this is only their 3rd race together and Phoenix wasn't exactly a bad showing." Wrong, this was their 38th race working together, since you have to include the 35 from last year's Nationwide season. They supposedly have the chemistry, and their teammate is in a tie for the points lead so I don't see why they haven't come out of the gate competitive like Slugger/Menard have. 95. hdawwwwg posted: 03.09.2011 - 8:13 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Geez, must have been tough to figure that part out. It's not like it just happened in a CUP race, and we're talking about it on the CUP page, with questions related to CUP racing. It's called context, look it up." It's called sarcasm, look it up when you're done assessing someone else's character, all the while being king douche. Go ahead and look up the history of NASCAR because I'm not doing the homework for a guy who can't make a post without personal insults towards random people. 96. RCRandPenskeGuy posted: 03.09.2011 - 11:37 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "The 1998 Daytona 500, in my opinion, trails only the 2000 version as the worst Daytona 500 I can remember. It's just that so many of us had our pulses pounding wondering if this would finally be Dale's year or would his bad luck continue to haunt him. But it is horrible race to rewatch except for the last 10 laps and the emotional post race." Exactly. I thought I was one of the only ones who thought the '98 Daytona 500 was boring. The finish made for a feel-good moment due to Earnhardt's long-awaited win for sure, but the race as a whole sucked. I'm just not a fan of straight line racing, and that's what it seemed they were doing that day rather than jumping out and trying to make passes like drivers usually do in plate races. I'd also like to add that NASCAR was better when they didn't have many sponsors involved with the running of the sport. Winston sponsored the Cup Series, but they didn't interfere with many of the major NASCAR traditions like today's sponsors do. The way Sprint ran off longtime sponsors such as AT&T a couple of years ago was completely unexcusable. That caused Caterpillar to leave the #22 BDR team and replace AT&T on the #31 car, thus causing BDR to shut down (they were on the road towards this anyway, Sprint just made it happen sooner). 97. RCRandPenskeGuy posted: 03.09.2011 - 11:57 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Has anyone noticed the absolute crap shoot the Daytona 500 has been since 2001? It seems prior to '01, the 500 was won by legends, champions, drivers with the best superspeedway equipment, etc. with the occasional surprise like '90 thrown in. Now, almost every year has a surprise/unlikely winner." I have noticed that too. You're absolutely right. Since the green flag dropped on the 2001 Daytona 500, we've had Michael Waltrip winning it (twice), Ward Burton (though he was really a pretty good driver, he just never had good equipment), Jamie McMurray on his way to beginning a career surgence, and of course 20 year-old Trevor Bayne this year in just his 2nd Cup start. I like the surprise winners, but as far as the saying goes for the Daytona 500 winner list being elite and that only the best drivers win it, this past decade has obviously proven that to be a farce. 98. 18fan posted: 03.10.2011 - 12:41 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) As crappy as the Brickyard 400 usually is, the cream always seems to rise to the top in that race. Just look at the winners: Gordon, Earnhardt, Jarrett, Rudd, Labonte, Elliott, Harvick, Stewart, Johnson, and McMurray. Other than McMurray, every winner of the Brickyard 400 has made a serious challenge for the championship or has won a championship. 99. Smiff_99 posted: 03.10.2011 - 9:55 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Sean, you need to be posting more on here. The discussions you've initiated on aero-dependency and the old No BUll/Winston Million programs have been refreshing. Too bad all the intelligent conversation has to be punctuated by bursts of infantile behavior. 100. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.10.2011 - 1:41 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) That is right Smiff_ 99 and 18 Fan. "As crappy as the Brickyard 400 usually is, the cream always seems to rise to the top in that race. Just look at the winners: Gordon, Earnhardt, Jarrett, Rudd, Labonte, Elliott, Harvick, Stewart, Johnson, and McMurray. Other than McMurray, every winner of the Brickyard 400 has made a serious challenge for the championship or has won a championship." Recently, the Brickyard is simply a better indicator of a drivers talent than the Daytona 500. You need the entire package, areo, engine, handling, etc. in order to win. There is a reason only three drivers have won both races in the same year, Jarrett, Johnson and McMurray. Its tough to do! Perhaps Sprint could offer a $2-5 million dollar bonus to sweep Daytona and Indy in the same year in the tradition of the Winston Million. How many active drivers have won a "grand slam" of races? Gordon? Stewart and Harvick are close, I think missing Darlington and a Coke 600 win. 101. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.10.2011 - 1:44 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Also, pair a fan with the Daytona 500 winner that way if the driver wins Indy, both fan and driver win the Sprint $2-5million dollars bonus. "Perhaps Sprint could offer a $2-5 million dollar bonus to sweep Daytona and Indy in the same year in the tradition of the Winston Million." 102. Smokefan05 posted: 03.10.2011 - 2:18 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Too bad all the intelligent conversation has to be punctuated by bursts of infantile behavior." That happens everywhere. 103. Anonymous posted: 03.10.2011 - 4:10 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Exactly. And for the record, I never go back to a previous race's thread. I also don't argue with trolls once I figure out they are trolls" *cough* COP OUT *cough* *cough* *cough* stubborn loser *cough* 104. BLab posted: 03.10.2011 - 4:15 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "How many active drivers have won a "grand slam" of races? Gordon? Stewart and Harvick are close, I think missing Darlington and a Coke 600 win." Bobby Labonte has a Brickyard 400, Southern 500, Winston 500, and Coke 600 win. So he has 3 of the old grand slam races, plus the Brickyard, and he came dangerously close to winning the Daytona 500 this year. That would have been perfect way to cap a future Hall of Fame career. 105. Smokefan05 posted: 03.10.2011 - 6:10 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) ^ Bobby could have won Daytona in 1998 but some fella named Earnhardt won it. Could have won it this year but left the bottom lane open. 106. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.11.2011 - 11:33 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) "At Speedweeks that year, NASCAR announced a change in policy. In handing out media credentials, NASCAR included new regulations which stated that any video, audio, quote, picture, etc. that was taken at a NASCAR event was owned by NASCAR. It was an obvious attempt by NASCAR to control what the members of the media said about NASCAR. While it wasnâ??t the first time NASCAR made a power gab, this would foreshadow both the arrogance and shortsightedness that personified NASCAR in the oughts. Iâ??d also make the point that the sponsorship deals signed in 2000 (specifically Roushâ??s deal with Viagra/Pfizer and Yatesâ?? deal with UPS) begat the era of unsustainable sponsorship deals and skyrocketing costs which directly contributed to the oligarchy of dominant teams we have." Those are excellent points. It has definitely been a cumulative effect leading to the bottoming out of the sport, which has led to NASCAR mercifully ditching the wing and braced splitters within a 10 month period, and NASCAR being back on the rise. I just hope NASCAR doesn't screw things up. Ah hell, who am I kidding, they totally will. "I'd also like to add that NASCAR was better when they didn't have many sponsors involved with the running of the sport. Winston sponsored the Cup Series, but they didn't interfere with many of the major NASCAR traditions like today's sponsors do. The way Sprint ran off longtime sponsors such as AT&T a couple of years ago was completely unexcusable. That caused Caterpillar to leave the #22 BDR team and replace AT&T on the #31 car, thus causing BDR to shut down (they were on the road towards this anyway, Sprint just made it happen sooner)." Another excellent point that is a very sore subject with me. Two major communications companies were willing to sponsor cars in this sport, AT&T and Verizon, and they ran them out. First of all it makes Sprint look bad, like they are afraid of competition (judging by friends of mine that have Sprint, they should be). Secondly, it hurts the sport they are sponsoring. Not smart. 107. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.11.2011 - 6:58 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Great point BLab! I was pulling hard for Bobby on the last lap, especially after Stewart held up Mark Martin on the restart. I wanted to see a repeat of the 2007 Talladega Busch race with Bobby pulling up in front of Edwards in turn four, taking away the #99's momentum and side-drafting Bayne coming to the checkered flag, but damn bi-polar Carl ruined the plan. Hopefully, Bobby will get one more win after the close calls of 2011 Daytona, 2006 Martinsville, 2005 Coke 600 and 2004 Darlington. 108. Smokefan05 posted: 03.11.2011 - 7:46 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "I just hope NASCAR doesn't screw things up. Ah hell, who am I kidding, they totally will." It's posts like these that make me REALLY wounder why NASCAR is where it is. Always blaming the higher ups and never look at the whole picture. 109. Anonymous85 posted: 03.11.2011 - 8:11 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Is it just me or do most of the people on this board act like spoiled 5 year old kids 110. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.11.2011 - 9:29 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) The thing I've noticed about the Daytona 500 since 2001 is the way the winner's season has often been subpar by their standards. Obviously this year it will be impossible to measure its effect since we have no expectations for Trevor Bayne or the Wood Brothers. But for the most part, Daytona 500 glory has been short lived. Obviously we have two major exceptions. In 2004 Dale Jr won the 500 and went on to a career year, winning 5 more races on a variety of tracks and contending for the championship in the cha$e until a late season meltdown that, well, hasn't really quit. But that is another story. The #8 team used that win as a springboard to a really good year. And of course 2006. The 48 team basically used that win as the start of their dynasty. With Chad Knaus suspended for his 517th cheating violation and NASCAR Nation ripping them, deservedly so, JJ and the 48 guys used this as motivation. How dare they call us cheaters after we have been caught cheating over and over again!! We'll show them!! And it worked. Oddly enough, in 2007, the New England Patriots used this same motivational technique and were a miracle helmet catch and a stupid all out blitz call from having a perfect season. (Non-NASCAR related tangent: Everyone talks about the Helmet Catch in the Pats/Giants Super Bowl, but never point out that, in the game winning touchdown play, the Pats acted like they were playing Madden on XBox and sent an all out blitz with the Giants 10 yards away from the end zone. This left Plax wide open, and only needed the ball gently tossed in his direction and for the gun in his waist band to not go off (sorry, I couldn't resist). That play was stupid and that is what people should be talking about.) But otherwise......yuck! Michael Waltrip started this trend in '01 by having a subpar year even by his low standards. 24th in points? Only two other Top 10 finishes in the next 35 races, a runner up at the next Daytona race and a "Where The Hell Did That Come From?" 2nd place at the old Homestead track. Ward Burton won it in '02 when he was seemingly on the rise. He won the Southern 500 the year before, and had some Top 10 points finishes recently. Although he grabbed one other win that year, he dipped even lower to 25th in points and fell off the map altogether shortly afterwards. In '03 Mikey was at it again. At first it looked like he had been transformed, being in the Top 5 in points (about 600 behind Kenseth, but still Top 5) as late as the Bristol Night race before an epic collapse to 15th. In 2005 Jeff Gordon won it, and 3 additional races, but was junk all year on the intermediates and wound up missing the cha$e. In 2007 Kevin Harvick followed a 5 win '06 season with a dramatic 500 win...... and didn't win again for more than 3 years. Newman awoke from his coma in '08 long enough to take the big prize, and announced he would leave Penske Racing 6 months later. Kenseth won it in '09 as well as the next race, then missed the cha$e that year, hasn't won since, and has gone through 67 different crew chiefs. Jamie Mac won it last year and had a career year winning the Brickyard and the Fall Charlotte, but was amazingly inconsistent and also missed the cha$e. Although this did lead to this year's newly instituted "Jamie McMurray Rule" for cha$e eligibility. So in the ten years since Mikey's '01 win (excluding Trevor and 2011), we have one championship, one other Top 5 points finish, one other Top 10 points finish (a tenth by Harvick in '07). The other 7? 11th or worse including two finishes in the 20s. Ouch. 111. Red posted: 03.11.2011 - 9:37 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "It's posts like these that make me REALLY wounder why NASCAR is where it is. Always blaming the higher ups and never look at the whole picture." Who created the chase, the COT, the top-35 rule, the lucky dog, phony debris cautions, cookie cutter tracks, and gimmicky rules? The higher-ups did. Who took away the Southern 500, Rockingham, North Wilkesboro, manufacturer identity, and opportunities for the little guy? The higher-ups did. The fans did not ask for ANY of these changes, but the higher-ups shoved them down out throats anyway. So please don't blame the fans. Thank you. 112. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.11.2011 - 9:40 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Always blaming the higher ups and never look at the whole picture." The thing is, the higher ups rule every aspect of NASCAR with an iron fist. Whatever they say happens, no questions asked. They can make all sorts of inane rule changes and last minute "competition rule changes" with no recourse. They control the media that covers them, and has the TV networks by the balls. They get to enforce rules when it is convenient, and ignore the same rules in similar situations. This isn't the NFL or other pro league with a union (well, I guess the NFL doesn't have a union now), the NASCAR higher ups answer to nobody. So if they are going to have that much control and micromanage every aspect of the sport the way they do, then they should take the heat for the sport's shortcomings. Who else is to blame? Nobody else has any say in how the sport is run. They have made some extremely short sighed business decisions that bit them badly, from which they are just now starting to recover. They are a big league sport that is run like a bush league. But things are on the upswing. The racing is better, the drivers have been more tolerable so far, the cars look so much better, and parity is improving. The big deal with this upswing is NASCAR took their hands off and let the "boys have at it" while fixing the horrible look of the COT. Hopefully they keep it this way. 113. Smokefan05 posted: 03.11.2011 - 10:02 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "The fans did not ask for ANY of these changes, but the higher-ups shoved them down out throats anyway. So please don't blame the fans. Thank you." I'm sorry to disagree with you. NASCAR fans complain over everylittle thing about the sport. So don't give me that crap. Because NASCAR hears the fans and everyone else supporting the sport. Oh and lets leave Mike Helton outta it. That man is just going with the flow. but i can blame whoever i want. If it makes you feel better, i blame BF, Fans, media, sponsers and TV people. But the 2 parties IMHO that are causing the most damage are BF and the fans. Appearently only me and Martin-Rusty on the only people on here that don't blame Brian France for everything wrong with NASCAR. And i'm most likely the ONLY poster on here to cut Brian France some slack when it comes to some things. 114. 00andJoe posted: 03.11.2011 - 10:14 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) >>"At Speedweeks that year, NASCAR announced a change in policy. In handing out media credentials, NASCAR included new regulations which stated that any video, audio, quote, picture, etc. that was taken at a NASCAR event was owned by NASCAR. It was an obvious attempt by NASCAR to control what the members of the media said about NASCAR. While it wasnâ??t the first time NASCAR made a power gab, this would foreshadow both the arrogance and shortsightedness that personified NASCAR in the oughts.<< Let's not forget the restrictions they slapped on the highlight-reel film in 2001. Anyone else remember the ESPN reporters having to stand outside the track property to catch interviews from drivers on their way out of the track, and how RaceDay, RPM2Night, etc. got killed off since they were only allowed to show the highlights on "sports news programs" (e.g. SportsCenter)? 115. 00andJoe posted: 03.11.2011 - 10:21 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) #113 - While BF and the rest do get a lot of the blame, I agree that the fans can't be held blameless. In the time I've watched the sport, I've always heard that what "is" is wrong and what "was" is better - and when "is" becomes "was", the new "is" is wrong and the old "was" is awesome. Exhibit A being the Two Car Trains at Daytona and 'Dega. There used to he howling about how there were the huge 43-car packs, and how those Weren't Racin', and NASCAR needed to do something - anything - to break 'em up and return racing to How It Was (i.e., no packs). You asked for it? You got it! ...and now there's howling about how there's the two car trains, and how that Isn't Racin', and how NASCAR needs to do something - anything - to pack 'em up and return racing to How It Was (i.e., huge packs). Exhibit B: The Chase. The points system was thoroughly pilliaged by the fans, said fans saying NASCAR Must Do Something about drivers running away from the field down the stretch (Matt Kenseth, 2003; straw, meet camel). So NASCAR changes the rules to Do Something, creating the Chase, intended to keep things tight down the stretch (more or less). And immediately the fans continue complaining and say how it was Better Before They Did Something, and we shouldn't penalise drivers who were running away from the field... There's more examples, but my evening coffee hasn't kicked in yet so I can't name any specific ones off the top of my head at the moment, just remember them being there. Suffice to say, everybody (yes, everybody - execs, fans, drivers, owners, track owners...) has been hit by the poo-flinging monkeys in the What's Been Going Wrong With NASCAR case. Some more than others, but every pot and kettle is black at night. 116. CarlEdwards99 posted: 03.11.2011 - 11:22 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "Exhibit B: The Chase. The points system was thoroughly pilliaged by the fans, said fans saying NASCAR Must Do Something about drivers running away from the field down the stretch (Matt Kenseth, 2003; straw, meet camel). So NASCAR changes the rules to Do Something, creating the Chase, intended to keep things tight down the stretch (more or less). And immediately the fans continue complaining and say how it was Better Before They Did Something, and we shouldn't penalise drivers who were running away from the field..." thats called addressing the symptom, not the disease. Instead of NASCAR trying to change the rules and racing to assure more parity among the top of the points, they made a gimmick system to artificially tightening the points (and most years it hasn't even giving us a close points race). Many people say before the chase, tight points battles for the championship were a rarity. That is revisionist history. True, from 1998 (when NASCAR went completely down hill) to 2003 tight points battles were a rarity, with only one close points battle in that stretch (2002), but from 1980-1997 (the "golden age"), tight points battles happened more often that not. In that 18 year period only 4 seasons was there not a tight points battle, 86, 87, 91 and 94, and 94 would of been a tight points battle if Irvin didn't get injured in Michigan. Thats 14 out of 18 years of tight points battles for the championship! Why the all sudden increase in blow out points races? Maybe it had to do with NASCAR boxing teams in more with the rules and thus if a team found one little trick or advantage, it was enough to give them a huge edge or maybe it had to do with aero dependency and if a team could just get out front or near the front early every week they were gold. I don't know why, but thats the issues NASCAR should of looked at, instead they gimmicked the points system and as usual, when you attack the symptom not the disease, you rarely get desired results, thus Brian France's gimmick point system can't even produce the frequency of tight points battles we had under the old system during the "golden age". 117. Smiff_99 posted: 03.12.2011 - 8:10 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Thank you, CarlEdwards99.............you saved me the trouble of typing that :) 118. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.12.2011 - 9:46 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Much like Smiff, I would like to thank CarlEdwards99 (the poster, not the driver). That summed up the cha$e perfectly. And you are 100% correct about addressing the symptom, and not the disease. I can't think of a better way to put it. Even the "blowout" years mostly weren't as bad as they might look. 2000 was looking great well into the summer with Dale getting as close as 45 points within Bobby. But then, in three straight weeks, Dale blew a tire at Pocono, Bobby blew everyone away at Indy, then Dale choked on the first lap at Watkins Glen, and that was pretty much it. 1986 was also looking great for a while with Darrell coming to life over the summer, then Tim Richmond shaking off a really bad start to the season to have a blistering, Stewart-esque summer to make some noise in the points. But then Darrell announced he was leaving Junior and that team imploded, and Tim fell back into inconsistency leaving it all to Dale. And 1994 was touched on. It was gonna be epic. Ernie, finally having found that balance between driving the piss out of the car, and holding back just enough not to crash every other week against the legend in his prime, trading the points lead week after week. Carl, you made some excellent points about some of the reasons the battles weren't as good from '98 to '03. NASCAR tightening the rules is definitely the #1 contributor in my mind. As you said, one slight advantage and you had the sport by the throat (see Gordon, Jeff and Evernham, Ray). But I would like to add one thing: The lack of chamionship caliber drivers on championship caliber teams. First of all, you had the tragic deaths of Winston Cup Champion Alan Kulwicki and Davey Allison who had finished 3rd in points in '91 and '92 and was maturing into the total package. Then Ernie had his accident, by the Grace of God lived, made an emotional comeback, but never was championship caliber again. His head injury caused him to fall back into his Swervin Irvan days. Also, Bill Eliott and Ricky Rudd started their own teams while still in their racing primes which adversely affected them, especially Bill, as they couldn't do it the way AK did. Also, after '94, Penske quietly fell off the map, and were unable to contend anywhere except the short tracks and Michigan. This kept Rusty from contending while still in his prime. And of course RCR fell behind the times, and Dale got involved in a series of horrific wrecks that battered his aging body (Dega '96, Daytona '97, Dega '98, The Winston '98, the Coke 600 '98, Atlanta '99) leading to them not being weekly factors anymore until Dale decided before 2000 "You know, I'm hurting pretty bad and it is affecting my driving, maybe I should look into having surgery to correct some of these problems." Ol Dale: fast as a cheetah, stubborn as a mule. "they made a gimmick system to artificially tightening the points (and most years it hasn't even giving us a close points race)." I know! That is the thing that kills me. They artificially tighen it, but the only really close battles in 7 years have been '04 and '10. The other years, Smoke in '05 and JJ his first 4 title years, the leader only had to finish like 15th or better. The only drama was whether or not bad luck would strike them. Not exactly thrilling. 119. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.12.2011 - 10:06 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) "NASCAR fans complain over everylittle thing about the sport. So don't give me that crap. Because NASCAR hears the fans and everyone else supporting the sport." I have to respectfully disagree. NASCAR has been very out of touch with the fans. The only way they have monitored how the fans feel is through ratings and attendance numbers. It wasn't until they bottomed out, and NASCAR realized they couldn't blame the sagging economy forever, that they decided to actually do something. It all bottomed out with the abomination that was the 2009 Fall Dega race when the drivers, fed up with NASCAR constantly micromanaging everything, finally took a stand and basically did a sit down strike for the first 170 laps. Only then did NASCAR realize "Hey, maybe we should listen to the fans". The cha$e had nothing to do with the fans, it was a way to compete with the NFL in the Fall. That was the only reason. The COT was supposedly about "safety", but really it was just a way for the higher ups to finally realize their dream of turning NASCAR into the IROC Series so they could control things even more. If they were truly so concerned about safety, why are they just now instituting a safer car in the NWide races 4 years later? Blaming the fans for these bad changes is simply misguided. "And i'm most likely the ONLY poster on here to cut Brian France some slack when it comes to some things." Again, when you have an absolute dictatorship, the responsibility falls on the shoulders of whoever is up top. And the guy up top has been Brain France (not a typo) since 2004. To me, the proof is in the pudding. NASCAR was enjoying a nice, natural growth upwards through 2003. But Brain decided it wasn't enough, they had to explode into everyone's conscienceness NOW in 2004. He instituted the cha$e, realigned the schedule looking only at market size, not quality of racing, allowed the drift towards common templates and zero wiggle room for innovations (turning it into the IROC Series), which pissed off NASCAR's core base but briefly gained the attention of many casual observers. The result was the ratings spike in 2004 as many people tuned in just to see what all the fuss was about. At first, Brain looked like a genius. Then the flavor of the month fans found a new flavor, and the core fans were left royally pissed. This has resulted in the sharp downward drop in ratings and attendance prior to this season. Finally, in 2010, the higher ups realized they couldn't keep ignoring the fans, and NASCAR finally realized "Hey wait, the fans hate the look of the COT with it's tacky as hell rear wing and ugly ass splitter, and don't like the points system". All three have been changed (they put the spoiler back on, cleaned up the splitter greatly, and changed the point scoring system) and people are optimistic again and ratings are rising again. If the fans are to blame for anything, it's for not revolting sooner. 120. Cooper posted: 03.12.2011 - 10:16 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) 111. Red posted: 03.11.11 - 9:37 pm "Who created the chase, the COT, the top-35 rule, the lucky dog, phony debris cautions, cookie cutter tracks, and gimmicky rules? The higher-ups did. Who took away the Southern 500, Rockingham, North Wilkesboro, manufacturer identity, and opportunities for the little guy? The higher-ups did." I don't know. I just sit my ass down and watch the race. I'm really not all that aware of the politics around the sport and really I don't have a desire to be. I know people say that a lot has changed, but in reality there isn't nothing much different from when I started watching NASCAR in 2001. Of course the cars are different. But that has always happened in NASCAR. When I catch races from the 1980's the cars were just big old boxes. So the COT was just another development in the NASCAR world. Also the reason for the debut of the COT was because of the fatal crashes in the 90's/early 00's. We had to create a safer car and a car that moved the driver as far as away from the left door as possible. To be a successful sport you need to ensure the fans and participants safety. Racing back to the caution was a time sensitive rule. It might've worked in the old day when racecar drivers respected each other, but in reality 2003 was the last straw. When a caution comes out you were supposed to stay in line and be a gentleman, instead Robby Gordon blew by Kevin Harvick, taking the lead and ultimately winning. Later that year Casey Mears was so desperate to gain a lap back that he almost destroyed the wrecked car of Dale Jarrett (who had taken his belts off). I'm sorry but doesn't the yellow flag mean slow down not speed up? People say BLAHBLAHBLAH lucky dog is bogus BLAHBLAHBLAH. Have you ever watched races with the racing back to the line? In some cases the leaders slowed down so much, that 5-10 guys would get their laps back. Did they deserve it? No. So NASCAR giving back a lap to the fastest one lap down car is just and fair. Top 35- The reason for this rule was to ensure NASCAR's best teams with the best sponsors to be guaranteed a place in the race. Most sponsors need to know that they will be in the race no matter what. That's why most teams outside the Top 35 don't have sponsors. Because they are not guaranteed a spot in the race. Is this right? No. But in hard economic times we want to make sure the guys with the big pockets are secure. Sending David Ragan and his UPS team home would likely drive UPS out of Roush or out of the sport. Some drivers that went home without the Top 35 rule. Biffle in 03, Kurt Busch in 01, Sterling in 98 and probably alot more. When peoples favourite drivers are not racing, they are not watching and NASCAR believed this was the best way to ensure that. Phony Debris cautions- Can't protect NASCAR on that. That was just so aggrevating. At least it looks like they are over that and are bringing some credibility back to the yellow flag. Cookie cutters- I agree that they don't produce great racing, but these facilities offer higher attendance and higher emenities. They allow for on track hotels/casinos and restaurants that alot of older tracks didn't. NASCAR decided to take the commercial route with the sport and isn't that what you're supposed to do? The first goal in business is to make money and NASCAR thought thats where it was. Whether they were right or wrong is besides the point. Please take my opinions with a grain of salt. I didn't watch the golden era age of racing that most of you are talking about. But it seems that most of the changes that NASCAR made were either because they were forced to or they were to further commercialize the sport to offer high purses and great business oppurtunities. I might be in the minority here but I enjoy the racing very much even if my guy is running 26th. At this moment in time NASCAR still offers a good product that mostly entertains me for 3-4 hours on a Sunday afternoon. 121. Eric posted: 03.12.2011 - 3:06 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) #115, You don't know what talking about by acting like all fans wanted a change to the points after 2003. My younger brother and I didn't want the point system to change after Matt Kenseth won it. We dealt with Jeff Gordon's 1998 season and were accustomed to points battles that weren't close. We followed different forms of racing besides Nascar for a long time and it should be something accepted. Brian France wasn't listening to my younger brother and I by creating the chase. 122. Eric posted: 03.12.2011 - 3:28 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) The top 35 rule is a piece of garbage in terms of sponsors. Sponsors actually continue to support a team if the team was good despite missing a race such as Roger Penske's two teams in 1995. I have followed the Indy 500 for many years and some big names and race teams missed the Indy 500 Including Roger Penske's cars missing the 1995 Indy 500 because their cars were not up to speed. His two drivers were Al Unser Jr and Emerson Fittipaldi for the Indy 500. Al Unser Jr missed the 1995 Indy 500 and his sponsor didn't leave him. Al Unser Jr. had a good season with 4 wins, and was still in his racing prime at the time he didn't qualify for the Indy 500. Emerson Fittipaldi didn't qualify for the 1995 Indy 500 either and his sponsor didn't leave him either. Since Roger's two cars don't lose sponsors despite not qualifying for the Super Bowl of Open Wheel racing, it means the same thing in Nascar. 123. Cooper posted: 03.12.2011 - 3:31 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Yes, but 1995 was a good time. Everybody was rich. Times have changed. Companies can't waste 20 Million dollars on drivers that aren't racing. I've heard DSSF talk about Home Depot and Joey Logano. you think Home Depot and NASCAR would be happy with missing a race. I think not. 124. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.12.2011 - 9:14 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) DSFF - "(Non-NASCAR related tangent: Everyone talks about the Helmet Catch in the Pats/Giants Super Bowl, but never point out that, in the game winning touchdown play, the Pats acted like they were playing Madden on XBox and sent an all out blitz with the Giants 10 yards away from the end zone. This left Plax wide open, and only needed the ball gently tossed in his direction and for the gun in his waist band to not go off (sorry, I couldn't resist). That play was stupid and that is what people should be talking about.)" The David Tyrie catch was sexier than the all-out blitz by the Pats. Also, don't forget New York's defense getting to Brady (getting inside his head for four quarters) which I think is up there with the game winning touchdown play. The D came up big against an offense that blew most teams off the field by the third quarter, except Baltimore. The Ravens exposed the Patriot's one-dimensional passing game for what it was and the Giants capitalized on it a few weeks later. "People say BLAHBLAHBLAH lucky dog is bogus BLAHBLAHBLAH. Have you ever watched races with the racing back to the line? In some cases the leaders slowed down so much, that 5-10 guys would get their laps back. Did they deserve it? No. So NASCAR giving back a lap to the fastest one lap down car is just and fair." That is right! The lucky dog is not bogus at all because there is a race within a race on restarts to be the first car one lap down. I have a major issue with the wave-around, which is bogus. The leader can lap up to 10 cars on the lead lap and a race can have three consecutive cautions come out within the span of 20 laps, which effectively unlaps all the cars one lap down due to the wave around. In short, the wave-around sucks. 125. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.12.2011 - 10:17 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) The no racing back to the yellow and lucky dog rules don't bother me that much. To me, that is another one of those "Why didn't they do this a LOT earlier. NASCAR has had electronic scoring since 1993. It took a "Holy Shit!" moment at Loudon in 2003 for them to finally do something. One thing though, I would like to see something done about lucky dogs when there are like 3 cautions right in a row. I think there ought to be a a 20 lap limit (two lucky dogs can't be given within 20 laps of each other). Cooper, you make some good points, and I respect your stance. I agree that the Top 35 rule was intended to protect the big sponsored teams. They just didn't go about it the right way. As far as the championship, this has been mentioned before, but NASCAR fans care much more about individual races and the quality of racing within those than the championship. I know it is ironic considering we ultimately juge a driver's greatness by their championships, but in the middle of a race, most of us fans are rarely thinking about how what is going on is affecting the points. Even if the announcers are shoving it down our throats. "Also, don't forget New York's defense getting to Brady (getting inside his head for four quarters) which I think is up there with the game winning touchdown play. The D came up big against an offense that blew most teams off the field by the third quarter, except Baltimore. The Ravens exposed the Patriot's one-dimensional passing game for what it was and the Giants capitalized on it a few weeks later." Oh yeah, the Giants knocked the shit out of Brady. That is definitely remembered. You are right about them being exposed. I'd actually go one step further with your point, I think Brady himself was exposed. As we've seen since, he is another Peyton Manning. Undeniably great...... as long as they aren't being pressed. They both struggle big time under pressure and are about as mobile as a bag of bricks. That is why people talk about the Chargers "having the Colts number". The truth is their defensive coordinator, Ron Rivera (now the Panthers head coach, yay) blitzed the shit out of Peyton which got to him. His schemes were cleverly disguised and it always threw Peyton off. The same thing is true of Brady. That is why the Jets upset them this year. They attacked, and Brady folded. One week later, against Big Ben, a quarterback that can slide around in the pocket and doesn't mind having defenders in his face, they didn't have the same effect. 126. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.12.2011 - 10:18 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) CarlEdwards99 gets a gold star for pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of Chase defenders' revisionist view of 'tight' points battles between 1985-2003. Many posters have correctly indicated the years when nobody seemed able to win the Cup like 1991, 2002, etc. Hell, in 'runaway' years such as 1999, Jeff Burton aka Mr. Conservative, was in contention through the Coke 600 before Jarrett and Todd Parrott hit on the right combination in the summer months. 2000 has been mentioned previously, but another prime example is 2001. After New Hampshire in July, Gordon and Jarrett were tied before DJ faded and Rudd challenged briefly. It seems to me the battles between '98 and '03 started out competitively, remember in '98 Jeremy Mayfield and Rusty Wallace leading and contending before Gordon's overpowering summer stretch, but sometime around May or June and up to mid-August of every season, except 2002, one driver and team broke out and eventually won the championship. 1998: Gordon dominated through wins and top-fives after his run-in with Rusty at Richmond in May 1999: Jarrett and his crew chief found the missing consistency around the same time as '98's champ, around Richmond in May. 2000: Earnhardt's lackluster runs at Pocono and Watkins Glen in late July and early August. 2001: Gordon and Jarrett match each other until a rough stretch for DJ starting in late July at Pocono through the rest of the season, Ricky Rudd contends after Jarrett fades and Gordon wrecks at Richmond in September, but Rudd also fades from October on as Stewart and Marlin finish strong. 2002: The "oddball" exception of sorts. Marlin has the consistency through August but fades in September before season-ending wreck at Kansas in late September, Gordon makes a run after winning Bristol, Darlington and Kansas only to falter due to engine failures at Richmond and Talladega, rookie Jimmie Johnson looks strong enough but not quite consistent enough, Mark Martin falters in late October at Talladega, Tony Stewart being just consistent enough from August through November and weathering the storms of Marlin's injury, Gordon's mechanical woes, Jimmie's inexperience and Mark Martin's horrible racing luck, wins the championship. WHEW!!!!!! 2002 deserves a novel and cinematic touch! 2003: Kenseth is far too consistent for any major challenges after Jr's mechanical (brake) failure at Charlotte in late May, Jimmie's and Gordon's tough summer stretch in August are too much to overcome, Bobby Labonte flames out after July Daytona, Newman despite winning 8 races is far too inconsistent to challenge for the Cup. So, 1998 and 2003 are considered blowout years for paradoxically polar-opposite reasons. Gordon in 1998 had more wins and was in contention to win nearly every race after Richmond in May. Kenseth in 2003 used ultra-consistency throughout 2/3 of the season to build such a commanding lead that a late season soon in late September through October, didn't derail his title run. 127. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.12.2011 - 10:19 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I apologize for post #3, I was mistaken due to the off weekend. 128. 00andJoe posted: 03.13.2011 - 12:54 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) #120 - But the top-35 rule hasn't done that. Jeff Gordon, of all people, can't hold down a full-season sponsorship anymore. And a number of the cars at the back of the top 35 aren't very well-sponsored either (Front Row Motorsports, holding down three of those spots, I'm looking at you). The provisionals worked well enough to "protect" teams trying to make the show who had a bad day. Of course, with only 44 cars showing up nowadays, why not just have everybody race? But that's another story... #121 - Never said 'all' fans did. But the majority did - or, at least, the majority who actually said anything on the subject. Which is another issue (and one not limited to racing) - if the majority wants one thing, and says nothing, and a minority wants another, and is loud, what's going to happen? Well... #124 - Actually the "wave around" is more honest than the Lucky Dog; either both are, or neither. The wave-around only comes into play if cars a lap down (or more) don't pit - before, they restarted directly in front of the leader, on the lead lap but with the leader buried halfway through the pack. The wave-around actually lets them make up the lap they chose to gamble on not pitting to get, and has the leader start - tada - in the lead. 129. Red posted: 03.13.2011 - 12:55 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) "I know it is ironic considering we ultimately judge a driver's greatness by their championships, but in the middle of a race, most of us fans are rarely thinking about how what is going on is affecting the points." This really is ironic. Virtually every fan loves to see drivers going all out for wins, racing with a "2nd place is the first loser" mentality. Those are the types of races and drivers we remember the most vividly, and hold in the highest esteem. And yet championships are often won by drivers doing the exact opposite: playing it safe and collecting points. This incongruity is pretty much unique to NASCAR. In team sports, the only way to win the championship is to win games; you'll never see an NFL team try to "only lose by a field goal" to maintain its position in the standings. In other individual sports, the focus is on winning tournaments, with heavy emphasis on the most prestigious ones; you'll never see a golfer purposely shoot par every hole so he can have a "good points day." With this in mind, I don't really value NASCAR championships all that much. Or at least not as much as I value a driver's performances in individual races. The 1996 season stands out in this regard. Terry Labonte may be the official champion of that year, but I will always feel that Jeff Gordon had the far better season: Gordon: 10 wins, 2,314 laps led Labonte 2 wins, 973 laps led I don't give a damn who collected more points, Jeff Gordon was the better RACER that season in all the categories that matter to me. Races or Championships? What do you guys think matters more? 130. 00andJoe posted: 03.13.2011 - 1:40 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Speaking of championships, I decided to see which car owner would lead the owners points right now, if each had only one car. Or, more specifically, only counting the points scored by the highest-finishing car of a team. Here's the results. I found it interesting, at least. 1. Roush, 122 2. Hendrick, 118 3. Gibbs, 117 4. Stewart-Haas, 115 5. Penske, 113 6. Petty, 110 7. Childress, 110 8. Earnhardt-Ganassi, 106 9. Waltrip, 95 10. Red Bull, 91 11. JTG-Daughtery, 84 12. Front Row, 74 13. Wood Brothers, 72 14. Phoenix, 67 15. FAS Lane, 66 16. Robby Gordon, 54 17. Furniture Row, 53 18. Germain, 45 19. TRG, 37 20. Baldwin, 32 21. Wallace, 24 22. Whitney, 12 23. NEMCO, 8 24. HP, 7 25. Keselowski, 3 26. Gunselman, 0 131. RLB posted: 03.13.2011 - 8:01 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) To Red post #129 The real question of 1996 is would you rather have 8 more wins or 37 more points at the end of the year? 8 wins! other examples David Pearson 1973 Bill Elliott 1985 Rusty Wallace 1993 The winningest driver to me is more important than collecting the most points, champions are measured by how great they do at Darlington,Daytona,Talladega,Charlotte,Indianapolis,Bristol,Sonoma,Watkins Glen,Pocono,Martinsville etc. not by how well they collect points. who's the winningest driver at the tracks above? Gordon 53 our prestigious all-time greatest driver Jimmie Johnson has 23,he has 5 straight joke era title's but only 2 dominant(most wins) title's. Here's a list of the drivers with the most dominant(most wins) championships 1. Richard Petty 4 1967,1971,1974-74 Jeff Gordon 4 1995,1997-98,2001 3. Tim Flock 2 1952,1955 Buck Baker 2 1956-57 Lee Petty 2 1958-59 David Pearson 2 1966,1968 Cale Yarborough 2 1977-78 Darrell Waltrip 2 1981-82 Dale Earnhardt 2 1987,1990 Jimmie Johnson 2 2007,2009 People don't go very far out of their way to educate themselves on this subject and have a habit of listening to talking heads and buying in to the "what have you done for me lately" mentality. 132. RLB posted: 03.13.2011 - 8:03 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Sorry the post above looks a little sloppy:( 133. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.13.2011 - 7:23 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) As I've said before, I don't think wins should be the only determinant for the championship, but they should hold a lot more water than they do. Everyone brings up '96 and I agree. The fact is Jeff won 10 races on all different types of tracks except road courses. All 4 short tracks, Dega, Pocono, Loudon, and a sweep of Darlington. That is your champion. 1985 is interesting. Sure most of Bill's wins came on the big tracks, but 11 wins to 3? Then again, with all the mechanical issues the #9 team had after their big Winston Million win, that should count against them some. But Darrell won by over 100 points. Not cool. But Darrell got hosed in '84 when he won 7 races but didn't even sniff the championship which was fought between Terry and Harry Gant, each having 2 wins apiece. 1993 gets talked about but I have to argue this one. And not just because I am an Earnhardt homer. Yes, Rusty had an incredible season with 10 wins, but Dale still had 6, nothing to sneeze at. Plus, all but one of Rusty's wins that year came on tracks one mile or less. Of Dale's 6 wins, he won on a one miler (Dover), one on a 1.3 miler (Darlington), one on a 1.5 miler (the Coke 600 after receiving a bullshit rough driving penalty), a 2.5 mile flat track (a rare Earnhardt Pocono win) and two plate track wins. And as far as the Johnson argument, I have to disagree. Today's NASCAR, in order to be champ, you have to excell on the intermediates. That is what the 48 spends most of their time on, and that is why they have been so dominant. Plus, if you notice, they have the most success on tracks that are in the cha$e. Their biggest weaknesses are Michigan, Bristol, and the road courses. What do they all have in common? None are in the cha$e. Of the cha$e tracks, they have 6 Dover wins, 6 Charlotte wins, 6 Martinsville wins, and 4 Phoenix wins. Also, they swept Darlington in 2004, then it was removed from the cha$e, and they haven't won there since. They have 3 Atlanta wins, but none since it was taken out of the cha$e. They also have 5 Fontana wins, 2 came when it was on Labor Day as their cha$e warm up, and once when it was actually in the cha$e, and the early race last year before it was taken out of the cha$e. Don't be surprised if they don't do well there from here on out. Of course their biggest weakness is plate racing. But they always seem to get a Top 10 finish in the Fall Dega race. I think they realize focusing on plate racing won't help because it is a crapshoot anyways. They just stay back, avoid the wrecks, then go at the end. They know where their bread is buttered. 134. Red posted: 03.13.2011 - 11:15 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) "I don't think wins should be the only determinant for the championship, but they should hold a lot more water than they do" Agreed. In my opinion, the three most important criteria in determining a champion should be wins, laps led, and versatility. Not just being dominant, but being dominant on a variety of tracks. If I had to award championships subjectively, and could give multiple drivers their appropriate share, here would be my picks: 2010 Johnson .6 Hamlin .3 Harvick .1 2009 Johnson 1 2008 Edwards .4 Johnson .4 Ky Busch .2 2007 Johnson .5 Gordon .5 2006 Johnson .5 Kenseth .4 Harvick .1 2005 Stewart .9 Biffle .1 2004 Johnson .7 Gordon .3 2003 Gordon .4 Junior .3 Newman .3 2002 Stewart .8 Ku Busch .2 2001 Gordon 1 2000 B Labonte .7 J Burton .3 1999 Jarrett .4 B Labonte .3 Gordon .3 1998 Gordon 1 1997 Gordon .8 Jarrett .2 1996 Gordon 1 1995 Gordon .9 Earnhardt .1 1994 Earnhardt .5 Irvan .3 Wallace .2 1993 Wallace .6 Earnhardt .4 1992 D Allison .4 Elliott .4 Kulwicki .2 1991 Earnhardt .6 Gant .3 D Allison .1 1990 Earnhardt 1 1989 Wallace .5 Earnhardt .5 1988 Elliott .6 Wallace .4 1987 Earnhardt 1 1986 Earnhardt 1 1985 Elliott 1 1984 Waltrip .5 Gant .3 T Labonte .2 1983 Waltrip .6 B Allison .4 1982 Waltrip 1 1981 Waltrip 1 1980 Yarborough .6 Earnhardt .2 Waltrip .2 135. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.14.2011 - 2:45 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Great ideas abound. On way to test versatility is to award different types of tracks, individual championships. Under this system, drivers earn points through wins, leading laps and getting the best possible finishes. At the end of the season, the team with the most "wins" per different track championship is the ultimate Sprint Cup champion. The categories include, Superspeedways, Short tracks, Road courses, Low-banked speedways, Moderate-high banked speedways, Flat tracks, Concrete tracks. Maybe Tire grinder tracks (Atlanta, Darlington) just for fun!! Each six to eight category will carry equal weight as far as the awarding of points is concerned. A system like this will put to rest many questions of what a complete champion should be. The most versatile of drivers will flourish. Thoughts? 136. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.14.2011 - 2:46 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Correction: "One way..." "On way to test versatility is to award different types of tracks, individual championships." 137. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.14.2011 - 12:11 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I love the versatility idea JarrettFan. I'm not sure how I'd implement it, but I like the idea of rewarding those who can do really well everywhere. Here is my idea that I just though of two seconds before I started typing this sentence: Adjust the points awarded for each type of track. Of course this would involve removing the cha$e, but then again, EVERY idea for improving the points system has the same first step: Get rid of the cha$e. Of our 36 races, here are the categories (as I see them, feel free to debate this) and number of races they have on the schedule: Road Courses: 2 Plate tracks: 4 Short tracks: 6 Flat 2-2.5 milers: 6 1 milers: 6 1.5 milers: 11 (I'm gonna puke) That is 35 of the 36 races. I didn't include Darlington because it really doesn't fit into anything. But for the types of tracks with less races, increase the points awarded. Here is my initial plan. This may change over the course of the race because, as I said, I just now thought of it. I'd combine the 1.5 miles with the 2-2.5 mile unrestricted ovals (Pocono, Indy, Michigan, Cali). Pretty much the guys who are good at one are good at the others. The same guys, for the most part, light up the 1.5 milers and the others as much (JJ, Carl, Biff, pre-March 2009 Kenseth, Hamlin, Gordon, Kahne). That is 17 of the races. I'd give out the regular amount of points for these races. For the short tracks and 1 milers, I'd double the points. You see a lot of anomolies here. JJ lighting up Martinsville, Dover, and Phoenix but struggling at Bristol: Kenseth doing well at Bristol and Dover but sucking big time at Martinsville. Kurt Busch lighting up Bristol and having very solid results at Richmond and Phoenix, but having a horrible record at Dover and Martinsville (despite his one win). June doing really well at Richmond, Phoenix, and Martinsville but doing mostly horrible at Dover (despite his one emotional win there) and Bristol (with the exception of '02-'04). Etc. You can't really lump these together like the 1.5 to 2.5 milers. And I think I'd add Darlington to this list. It might be 1.336 miles, but with its narrow, slick, quirky corners, it fits in best with these. I'd also double the plate track's points (that sound you just heard was the 48 team gulping). Only four races and on a complete island. I'd only double because they are a bit of a crapshoot. Plus, hardly anybody that has won at Daytona that hasn't won at Dega. Since 1988 once plate racing as we know it was instituted, only Kenseth, Newman, Biffle, both Burtons, John Andretti, Cope, and Darrell (his Dega wins were all unrestricted) have won Daytona but not Dega. Road courses: points are tripled. Ambrose may make the cha$e just based on this. Oh wait, I'm scrapping it. Only twice a year, totally different. 138. Smiff_99 posted: 03.14.2011 - 2:57 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Post #134 - 1986 - What about Tim Richmond? 139. Anonymous85 posted: 03.14.2011 - 6:08 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) If i could compare Jr to anyone it would be Jeff Hardy in my mind both of them have a lot of personal demons 140. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.14.2011 - 6:13 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) DSFF, I wanted to differentiate 1.5 milers because there are 11 of them( I'd puke too), into two categories: Low-banked and moderate-high banked. Moderate-High banked Speedways: Las Vegas, Texas, Charlotte, Chicago, Kansas, Kentucky, Homestead Low-banked Speedways: Michigan, California **Atlanta falls into the tire-grinder category with Darlington because Darlington is unique and requires a category with a minimum of two tracks per category. **Dover is in the concrete track category with Bristol and Bristol is also with Richmond and Marinsville in short tracks. I would define flat tracks as Phoenix, New Hampshire, Martinsville and Richmond (due to its shared properties with the other tracks in this category). There are some obvious doubles in short-flat tracks, concrete-short tracks. 141. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.14.2011 - 6:28 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Now, it is possible to create a micro-category within the High-moderate banked speedway set. If we include the one or double dog leg tracks, Vegas, Texas and Charlotte, **Atlanta qualifies under a different category with Darlington, the high-banked set included just four tracks: Chicago, Kansas, Kentucky and Homestead. I honestly don't know how to separate the cookie cutters without resorting to the degree of banking cutoff to differentiate between moderate and high banked speedways. The goal, as I see it, is to even out the championship hunt by emphasizing a team's versatility. Put simply, equal points per track category. The issue lies in separating moderate and high banked 1.5 milers so that one set doesn't have a monopoly of importance over the other track categories. 142. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.14.2011 - 6:31 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Whoops! I would include Indianapolis in the flat track category due to its shared properties. "I would define flat tracks as Phoenix, New Hampshire, Martinsville and Richmond (due to its shared properties with the other tracks in this category)." 143. Talon64 posted: 03.14.2011 - 7:23 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I love this idea too. I wrote about having track championships along with the regular championship a while back (http://www.racing-reference.info/showblog?id=539) but actually having these "track" championships decide the overall champ is a great idea, and Jarrett88Fan did a much better job of separating them out to make the different sets of tracks more equal. 144. Red posted: 03.15.2011 - 12:09 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Also love the idea. Personally, I would simplify it and divide the tracks into three categories: Short Tracks (12): Bristol, Martinsville, Richmond, Loudon, Dover, Phoenix Cookie Cutters (14): Las Vegas, Atlanta, Fontana, Texas, Charlotte, Chicago, Kansas, Michigan, Homestead, Kentucky Specialities (10): Daytona, Talladega, Darlington, Pocono, Indy, Sonoma, Watkins Glen This way, you can weight each category the same, without doubling or tripling the points for any particular race. 145. Eric posted: 03.15.2011 - 2:00 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) #39, Comparing Dale Jr. to Jeff Hardy is off base and I am not a fan of Dale Jr. Dale doesn't have the personal demons as Jeff Hardy. Dale Jr. doesn't show up high on drugs unlike Jeff Hardy. Jeff Hardy suffered from burnout years and has done illegal drugs for a long time. Dale Jr. hasn't done illegal drugs like shrooms or pot since his early 20's and he was a late model stock car driver at the time. Dale Jr.'s problem had been distractions like owning a bar, owning race teams, production company and other stuff. None of that other stuff is drugs. 146. Eric posted: 03.15.2011 - 2:00 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I mean #139, not 39. 147. Cooper posted: 03.15.2011 - 3:10 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I've seen a lot of things in wrestling. But Jeff Hardy being stoned in the Main Event of a Pay-Per-View...Crazy. And I agree with Eric, Dale Jr might make some mental errors, but he is always clean and sober when it comes to his profession. 148. 00andJoe posted: 03.15.2011 - 3:35 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) #144 - There's a plan that could work. I like it. 149. Smokefan05 posted: 03.15.2011 - 5:46 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) ^ As do i. 150. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.15.2011 - 7:09 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) I really like these ideas. It's cool reading other people's takes on this. 151. Talon64 posted: 03.16.2011 - 5:31 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) This brainstorming gave me an idea to incorporate track championships alongside the Chase and still affect the championship in a major way. Major league sports award teams that win division championships by seeding them the highest for the playoffs. I think NASCAR could pull off the same thing if they award a significant number of bonus points for drivers who win "division" championship set by track type in the first 26 races of the season. Split the tracks in the first 26 races into 3 "divisions". Working loosely here, tracks a mile or shorter make up the Short Track division, intermediates make up the Intermediate Track division, and the plate tracks, road courses and Pocono/Indy make up what I can best describe as the Super Track division. That should leave a pretty equal amount of races for each division, although you could always cheat a bit just to make sure they're as equal as possible. For instance, you could put Darlington in any of them. Driver(s) who score the most points in each "division" get 10 bonus points toward the Chase, which with the new system would be equal to 3 wins + 1 point. And given you're probably going to need to win a few races to win a division that'll give each division winner a sizable advantage to start the Chase, likely a top 3 seed. But the divisions are free for any driver to win, meaning there's the scenario where a driver can win 2 or even all 3 divisions, earning as much as 30 bonus points toward the Chase. 6+ wins would probably be necessary to pull something like that off so you could see a driver with 50+ bonus points to start the Chase. But if you're THAT good that you can prove you can win and perform on every type of track on the circuit in the same season then you deserve to have that huge an advantage. 152. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.16.2011 - 8:43 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) ^ I like it. 153. Red posted: 03.17.2011 - 9:28 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Great idea, Talon. That makes the chase seem almost justified. Almost. Here's my idea. Using the three track categories I listed in post 144, I would award bonus points for wins based on versatility across those categories: Category w/ most wins: 10 pts per win Category w/ next most wins: 20 pts per win Category w/ least wins: 30 pts per win The easiest way to explain it is to use an example. Let's say Carl Edwards wins 6 races, all on intermediates; meanwhile Jimmie Johnson wins 6 races, two in each track category. Here would be the points breakdown: Edwards: 6 x 10 = 60 points Johnson: (2 x 10) + (2 x 20) + (2 x 30) = 120 points Even with the same number of wins, the more versatile driver gets the advantage, as I think it should be. 154. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.18.2011 - 12:22 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Exactly Red ^ Fantastic ideas. 155. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.18.2011 - 8:55 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Red, you are a genius. I wish I would have thought of that. It's perfect. 156. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.18.2011 - 9:22 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Ok Red, here is an excellent test case for your idea: the 2008 season. Carl wins 9 races, but 7 are on cookie cutters, with one short track win and one specialty win (Pocono). Kyle Busch explodes for 8 wins before his epic failure in the last 1/3 of the year. He wins FIVE specialty races, 2 cookie cutters, and one short track. Meanwhile, JJ brings up the rear with "only" 7 wins, 4 short tracks, 2 cookie cutters, and 1 specialty. Here is how the bonus points work out: Carl: (7 x 10) + (1 x 20) + (1 x 30) = 120 Kyle: (5 x 10) + (2 x 20) + (1 x 30) = 120 JJ: (4 x 10) + (2 x 20) + (1 x 30) = 110 This is a fascinating test study. Yeah Carl, as is the case for his career, wins 75% of his races on cookie cutters. But he does win a LOT on those. So even though it wasn't a very diverse group of wins that year (a microcasm of his career), he still OWNED the CCs. That gives him as many points as Kyle who had an extremely diverse variety of wins before he shit the bed late in the season (a microcasm of his career). In fact, Kyle's '08 season may want us to expand our categories. Two plate wins, two road course wins, 2 cookie cutters, a Dover win, and a Darlington win. With just one less win and a WHOLE lot more diversity in his wins, I feel he should have more. But we'll get to that later. And JJ, despite not having the breakout seasons Carl and Kyle enjoyed, still comes up just 10 points shy in bonus points, a margain he would would most likely make up for in other areas (a microcasm of his career). So overall, I love the idea. Maybe an expansion of categories, but overall it is nearly perfect. 157. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.18.2011 - 10:42 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) More fun test studies: 1993: Rusty: (9 short track) + (1 CC)(x2) = 110 Dale: (4 special) + (1 short track)(x2) + (1 CC)(x3) = 90 Thoughts: Dale won that year by 80 points. This would knock that down to 60. Rusty deserved to be closer that year. But, again, I would consider expanding the specialties. And not just because I'm a huge Earnhardt homer (hell, I made the case for Kyle freaking Busch earlier). But I'd definitely keep the cookie cutters the way they are. A cookie cutter is a cookie cutter. And not just because I hate Carl. 1985: Awesome Bill: (6 special) + (4 CC)(x2) + (1 short track)(x3) = 170 (Yikes!) Jaws Waltrip: (1 special) + (1 CC)(x2) + (1 short track)(x3) = 60 Thoughts: DW won by 101 points. This bonus points system gives it to the deserving champ. This shows the whole "Bill could only win on one type of track" is complete and total bullshit. Yeah, he had trouble winning on tracks less than 1 mile. He was too unwilling to use his bumper. Going against drivers like Earnhardt and Rusty in their primes, that was a hinderance. But to say he was one dimensional is pure crap. This season proves it. He won at Dover, swept the difficult, quirky as hell, ultimate driver's track at Darlington, swept the 1.5 mile Atlanta track (back when ATL and Charlotte were the only 1.5 milers, and Atlanta didn't have the copycat dogleg), won all 4 races on the horsepower tracks at Michigan and Pocono, and twice on the unrestricted monsters at Daytona and Dega. One dimensional my ass. Another thing: DW only won 3 times, but he maximized those 3 wins under our system. One thought: How much interest would this add to the current schedule at the Fall Phoenix race, the next to last race. Imagine drivers close in points, with wins on cookie cutters and specialties, but none on the short tracks. How desperate would they be to get what would turn out to be 30 bonus points for that one win? How much fun would that race be? Now for a points race that was anything but fun: 1984 (their actualy points margain in parenthesis): Texas Terry: (1 short track) + (1 special)(x2) = 30 Handsome Harry (-65): (2 special) + (1 short track)(x2) = 40 Awesome Bill (-131): (2 CCs) + (1 short track)(x2) = 40 Ironhead (-238): (1 special) + (1 CC)(x2) = 30 Jaws (-278): (5 short track) + (1 special)(x2) + (1 CC)(x3) = 100 Thoughts: Yeesh! I know we've had years where we've wondered if the best driver was truly crowned champ ('85, '96, '03, '04, '07 to name a few), but I think I have to add this year to 1991 and 2002 to the "Does anybody truly deserve to be champion this year?" list. Darrell won 7 races. The four people ahead of him won a combined total of 10. He never really factored in the championship hunt. By summer, it was Dale leading (with no wins at the time), with Terry and Harry close by, and Bill lurking the whole time. Mechanical failures at Darlington, Charlotte, and Rockingham mercifully knocked Dale out of the points hunt. Even Red's kickass idea can't save this shitpile of a points race. It may have been the year I was born, but can we just forget 1984 ever happened? But we can't forget about this year. This is probably the year that began points racing as we know it. Suddenly Darrell's 1985 season makes a lot more sense. Don't you think they said to themselves "Hmmmmm, we want to be champions above all else, but going fast and winning a lot (which in those days meant sacrificing reliability) means less than finishing, so let's focus on that."? Don't you think Richard Childress looked at this year (his first full time year with Dale behind the wheel), along with 1985 when they blew something like 10 motors trying to keep up with Bill and struggled just to make the Top 10 in points, and said "Hmmmmm, with Dale behind the wheel, all we have to do is build cars that won't break down, at the expense of speed, and Dale's talent will carry us the rest of the way" leading to six championships, but costing Dale the chance to really rack up the wins the way he should have? I think we need to look at 1984 as a pivitol year, for better or worse. And now for the one I have no explanation for: 1996: Texas Terry: (1 short track) + (1 CC)(2x) = 30 Wonderboy: (6 short track) + (4 special)(2x) = 140 Thoughts: I have nothing personal against Texas Terry. I like him personally and respect his classiness. I was very happy that he won the last Southern 500. I even feel bad that Dale spun him out to win the '99 Bristol Night Race. But Terry is just too damn passive to have ONE Winston Cup championship, let alone 2. For his career, he has a staggering 281 Top 5 finishes. But only 22 wins. He shouldn't have any titles. Especially this year. Gordon lost by 37. This makes up for that. Big time. As it should be. 158. Jarrett88fan posted: 03.18.2011 - 3:44 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Texas Terry exploited the "consistency wins championship" mantra to perfection in '84 and '96. Every past Winston Cup champion '71-'03 deserved them for using the respective points systems they had to work with. The only debatable 'champion' is Kurt Busch. 159. Talon64 posted: 03.18.2011 - 5:31 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) A champion is the guy who scores the most points. So if you score the most points in a season, you win the championship and you deserve it. But champion =/= best driver in a season. Most of the time it does but then you've got cases like Terry's championships where they aren't of the highest quality. So in a case like 1996 Terry's the champion but everyone knows that Jeff Gordon was the best driver that season, at least those who rightfully give a lot of respect to winning races. So to me it isn't a case of whether Terry's a deserving champion or not, because of what it takes to be a champion which is just to have the most points by season's end (with the exception of the Chase era). But DaleSrFanForever shows that he isn't a QUALITY champion; to me there's a difference, which opens the door for rating guys ahead of him with fewer or even no championships. So Terry's a deserving champ, you just can't hold his titles up with very high regard. 160. Red posted: 03.18.2011 - 9:07 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Thanks for the love, guys! After seeing the retroactive results of this system, I agree that the categories need to be more specific. How about this: Short Tracks: Bristol, Richmond, Martinsville, Wilkesboro Cookie Cutters: No changes Flat Tracks: Pocono, Indy, Loudon, Phoenix, Old Homestead, Ontario Quirky Ovals: Darlington, Rockingham, Dover Specialties: Daytona, Talladega, Watkins Glen, Sonoma, Riverside With five categories, the bonuses would be 10, 20, 30, 40, 50. That may seem too high at first glance, but it's really hard (and rare) for one driver to win on all those different kinds of tracks, so I feel it's justified. 161. Red posted: 03.18.2011 - 9:46 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Here are the revised results for some of the seasons DSFF already did: 2008 Edwards: 7 CC, 1 Short, 1 Flat = 120 Busch: 4 Special, 2 Quirky, 2 CC = 140 Johnson: 3 Flat, 2 Short, 2 CC = 130 The versatility of Kyle and Jimmie overcomes Carl's cookie cutter dominance, despite Carl having more total wins. That's more like it. 1993 Wallace: 5 Short, 3 Quirky, 1 CC, 1 Flat = 180 Earnhardt: 2 Special, 2 Quirky, 1 CC, 1 Flat = 130 Rusty and Dale were about equally versatile, but Rusty had those extra short track wins to boost his total. I think Rusty had the slightly better season. 1985 Elliott: 4 CC, 3 Quirky, 2 Special, 2 Flat = 200 Waltrip: 1 CC, 1 Short, 1 Quirky = 60 Awesome Bill still wins hands down, and rightfully so. 162. Red posted: 03.18.2011 - 10:58 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Hereâ??s another interesting season, 2006: Johnson: 2 Special, 1 CC, 1 Short, 1 Flat = 110 Stewart: 3 CC, 1 Special, 1 Short = 80 Harvick: 3 Flat, 1 Short, 1 Special = 80 Kenseth: 2 CC, 1 Short, 1 Quirky = 70 Kahne: 6 CC = 60 Sure changes the way we look at those wins, huh? Kasey wins all six of his races on cookie cutters, while JJ almost doubles Kaseyâ??s bonus points by winning in four different categories. Harvick and Smoke also outpace Kahne in bonus points despite having one fewer win each, and Kenseth scores more bonus points with two fewer wins. The 2006 season is what inspired me to create this system in the first place, and the results are striking. Other notables: Waltrip 1981: 6 Short, 3 Quirky, 1 CC, 1 Flat, 1 Special = 240 Waltrip 1982: 7 Short, 2 Special, 2 Quirky, 1 CC = 210 Earnhardt 1987: 6 Short, 3 Quirky, 1 CC, 1 Flat = 190 Earnhardt 1990: 3 Special, 2 Quirky, 2 CC, 1 Short, 1 Flat = 190 Gordon 1996: 4 Short, 4 Quirky, 1 Special, 1 Flat = 190 Gordon 1997: 2 Short, 2 Special, 2 Quirky, 2 Flat, 2 CC = 300 Gordon 1998: 3 Special, 3 CC, 3 Flat, 3 Quirky, 1 Short = 350 Johnson 2007: 5 CC, 3 Short, 1 Flat, 1 Quirky = 180 What really stands out to me is Jeff and Rayâ??s ability to consistently win on all types of tracks. His 1997 season was perfectly balanced, with a pair of wins in all five categories! His historical 1998 season looks even more impressive, with three wins in FOUR different categories. Holy shit! 163. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.19.2011 - 11:34 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) I like the 5 categories. At first I didn't like the idea of lumping the plate tracks and road courses together, but the more I thought about, the more I like it. Those two types of racing are on such islands as compared to the rest of the schedule, it takes a totally different preparation and driving minset to be successful at the plates and the roads. I like that. Plus, as I've said, I like the intrigue it bring to the end of the season as drivers race on a track in one category for the last time, looking for the big bonus points. Imagine the Fall races at Martinsville (last short track, Race 32 of 36), Dega (last specialty, Race 33 of 36, insane to begin with), and as mentioned earlier, Phoenix (last flat track, Race 35 of 36). That would give NASCAR the late season excitement it has been looking for. The chance to completely flip the standings in one race, and for a good reason, not just because they arbitrarily retightened the field with 10 races left. I left out Texas and Homestead in the Fall for my "excitement races" because there are so many cookie cutters, I'm guessing the championship contenders, by that point in the season, would have already picked up at least one by then. JJ, Denny, and Kevin all had last year, JJ and had in '09, JJ and Carl had in '08, JJ and Jeff did in '07, JJ and Kenseth did in '06, etc. "What really stands out to me is Jeff and Rayâ??s ability to consistently win on all types of tracks. His 1997 season was perfectly balanced, with a pair of wins in all five categories! His historical 1998 season looks even more impressive, with three wins in FOUR different categories. Holy shit!" Oh yeah. You are right, that is very impressive. They got it done everywhere. From '95 through '99 (before Ray left) they had one plate in all 5 years. In their last 5 road course races together, they were undefeated. Their short track success was insane and very underrated. Quirky tracks? Forget about it. 5 Darlington wins (4 straight Southern 500s), 3 straight Dover wins, 4 wins at The Rock, holy shit! Flat tracks? 2 Brickyard wins and 3 Pocono wins (would be 4 if Gordon hadn't missed a shift in '95). And they got the job done on cookie cutters, especially the Coke 600, 3 wins, and Atlanta, 3 wins. Throw in 2 wins at Cali, and they had no weaknesses. It makes me wonder, if Ray were wired more like Chad Knaus and less like Larry Brown (the basketball coach that has coached something like 57 different teams, turning doormats into contenders, then leaving right as they are about to peak), if he were interested in building a dynasty, then sticking with it, trying to see just how much they can accomplish. Of course, because of Jeff's talent, it didn't affect him too much. He had a very successful 6 year run with underrated Robbie Loomis (another championship and many more wins), then two good years with LeTarte in '06 and '07 before that combo lost their chemistry, Jeff hurt his back, never really adapted to the COT, and Letarte forgot how to call a race. But with Ray, they just brought the sport to its knees the way JJ and Chad are doing now. But Jeff's versatility along with his staggering numbers need to be accounted for. He is the all time road course winner AND second only to Earnhardt in all time combined Daytona/Dega wins (even when they were unrestricted, those two tracks were anomolies on the circuit). That is insane. Plus, his short track win total, his 1 mile win total, 1.5-2 mile win total, and 2.5 mile flat track total. And not to mention his staggering Darlington success. This may change in years to come, but JJ can't touch his versatility. But anyways, I love the new categories. 164. Anonymous85 posted: 03.19.2011 - 3:05 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Happy Birthday Dalesrfanforever 165. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.19.2011 - 6:55 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Thanks. I'm not sure how you knew that, but thanks anyways. 166. Anonymous85 posted: 03.19.2011 - 7:21 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Well you said you were born the day after the late benny parsons last win 167. DaleSrFanForever posted: 03.20.2011 - 10:55 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Oh yeah. It's cool that you saw that. thanks again. 168. Sean posted: 03.22.2011 - 1:35 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) I'd weight the tracks according to their difficulty rather than grouping by type of track. For instance, I would award five times regular points to the road courses, four times to the more physical short tracks, three times to the faster superspeedways that still require talent but are often more reliant on car (and I know people are going to scream at me putting Darlington in that group and not in 4), two times to the cookie-cutters, and regular points only to the plate tracks. Most purists would scoff at me overrating the road courses, so you can change that if you like but: 5*: Sears Point, Watkins Glen 4*: Bristol, Loudon, Martinsville, Phoenix, Richmond 3*: Darlington, Dover, Indianapolis, Pocono 2*: Atlanta, California, Charlotte, Chicagoland, Homestead, Kansas, Michigan, Texas 1*: Daytona, Talladega Putting road courses (which require masses of talent) in the same category as plate tracks (which from 2000-present are 100% luck) seems bizarre. I would want plate tracks weighted the least in a category by themselves if I were weighting tracks. You could put all the tracks I've listed in 3-5 into one 3* category if you like since all of those tracks usually require major talent to win, while the 1* and 2* tracks are usually more about car. So basically, I don't like the idea of scoring points based on enforced diverse winning on various track types (especially when you're going to have odd groupings like road courses and plate tracks together), but I do like the idea of weighting points based on the difficulty of the track (which I know not everyone will agree with). That'll never happen though since you're never going to get any group of people to agree on which tracks should receive which weights (and individual tracks would probably be bullying NASCAR to receive higher weights to have more impact on the points standings, so that really wouldn't work). Not to mention that there are some people who completely disagree with me and think that plate racing is the hardest and road course racing is the easiest (I 100% disagree, but there are tons of people who say that in plate racing you race the competition more than anywhere else, and on road course racing, you're just racing the track...) 169. Smiff_99 posted: 03.22.2011 - 11:41 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) IMHO, we should be runnin' 4-6 Road Course events a year. I love 'em. Can you imagine 43 cars barrelling into the corkscrew at Laguna Seca? 170. Talon64 posted: 11.30.2011 - 6:44 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) This would turn out to be Carl Edwards' only win of 2011. 171. RaceFanX posted: 01.01.2012 - 12:59 am Rate this comment: (0) (0) Very interesting that Carl only won this race but still came just one position short of being the season champion. Ironically his teammate Matt Kenseth also only won the Vegas race back in 2003 during his one-victory championship season. Carl did also win the All-Star race in 2011 but that race doesn't count for points. 172. Daniel posted: 05.21.2012 - 3:00 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) In using fastest 43: #92 Brian Keselowski Out using fastest 43: #6 David Ragan 173. Robert Nelson posted: 07.12.2012 - 7:32 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) F1 points: Carl Edwards 43 Jeff Gordon 25 Tony Stewart 24 174. Rich posted: 12.19.2020 - 9:54 pm Rate this comment: (0) (0) Mike Joy, Larry McReynolds and Darrell Waltrip were the commentators. Dr. Dick Berggren, Krista Voda, Matt Yocum and Steve Byrnes were the pit road reporters. Chris Myers and Jeff Hammond were in the Hollywood hotel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Post a comment:* Your comment may not appear immediately - all comments must be approved by the moderator. Name: Comment: