Happy Harvick put on probation!

[JeeberD]

That sure does sound familiar, doesn't it? :D

I wonder if he's going to come back better and more powerful than ever! :D :D

Too bad he wasn't banned from NASCAR. That would have made for an even greater thread title.

Oh, and if anyone actually cares about that NASCAR stuff, here's a link (http://espn.go.com/rpm/wc/2003/0908/1611835.html)...

[Bonegavel]

From a fan's viewpoint, I think Harvick is an ass. If Rudd was able to get close enough to hit him in the ass, that means Harvick's car wasn't good enough at that point to pull away. Shit happens.

They should allow and encourage these fueds because Nascar is starting to suck as it is. The points system leads to no excitement this time of year. Kennseth can phone in the rest of the races and still win. If they were to alter the points awarded for a race, we would see some action all year long. Give the winner an extra 50 points. Have races where the points are more. They need to do something, because all the "equality" of cars BS is dulling the sport (IMHO).

[EagleFan]

Just to add to BG' idea, how about changing the point system to give even more points for how far ahead you are. Win a race by a couple tenths of a second and you get only 1 or 2 more points for the win, win by 8 seconds and get 9-10 more points than second. Let this play out all the way back to last place. That way if your engine blows lap 1 and you finish last you get just a couple points but finish last in a great race that everone is on the lead lap (like that's ever going to happen) and you get more points for that race.

Example (something along this line, I haven't taken time to really thing though the standings):
1st 250 points
2nd (depends on how far back) 230-249 points
3rd (depending on how far back) 210 - 244 points


Hmm, that gives me an idea for the racing league I do. :)

[clintl]

I think NASCAR should only give points for a top 10 finish, so you wouldn't see these wrecked cars that have no business being on the track out there getting in everyone else's way. The NASCAR points system is ludicrous.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
From a fan's viewpoint, I think Harvick is an ass. If Rudd was able to get close enough to hit him in the ass, that means Harvick's car wasn't good enough at that point to pull away. Shit happens.

They should allow and encourage these fueds because Nascar is starting to suck as it is. The points system leads to no excitement this time of year. Kennseth can phone in the rest of the races and still win. If they were to alter the points awarded for a race, we would see some action all year long. Give the winner an extra 50 points. Have races where the points are more. They need to do something, because all the "equality" of cars BS is dulling the sport (IMHO).

Ummm....if the "equality" of cars is dulling the sport, how come Kenseth is so far ahead?

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
Ummm....if the "equality" of cars is dulling the sport, how come Kenseth is so far ahead?

you help make my point. Look at newman. The man has won 6 times this year and he is in 6th place. Say all you want about consistency, but that is boring. If wins were worth, say an extra 50, newman would have an extra 300 points (Kenseth would only have an extra 50). He would be in the hunt. Win a couple more, and now we're talking.

That is exciting. Not, oh, Kenseth came in 8th again. Nobody can touch him. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[JeeberD]

Ah crud, another attempt to be funny has gone awry. And this time I even started some NASCAR discussion. Gak!

[Bonegavel]

Didn't seem like an attempt to me. The smiley could have been you gloating over harvick's ill luck.

[JeeberD]

The reference was to the now banned poster Happy29, who was a huge Harvick fan. After he was banned he emailed SkyDog stating that he would come back "better and more powerful than ever."

Ah well...

[SunDancer]

Nascar has the fans, sponsors and prolly the best young crop of talented drivers to join the cup series in a long time. However, they need changes. Get rid of the stupid-caution lap finishes. That's not racing for victory. Run the last 4-5 (pending on size of circuit) laps under green. Also, shake up the schedule...They need to cut down the schedule to 26-30 races. Make a win more prestige, and make tracks more exciting by not each having two races a year. Give pit crews, teams and drivers more time off...might allow them to cool down some of the tempers. Give us more diversity in the tracks they run (more Bristols!), and maybe another road circut or two.

I like the point change system, though the idea about how far ahead you finish would be unfair (as some races might end differenet in cautions, ect..). I think the problem is that each position is only seperated by a few points, from first to 42. I want to see a guy who is constiant a top-5/10 runner be a top-standing leader.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A few thoughts from various stuff in the thread so far

-- As usual, Inside Winston Cup provided some interesting conversation about the week's events. Schrader, Benson & Kenny Wallace (subbing for M.Waltrip this week) seemed to agree that Harvick shouldn't have done what he did publically but had no problem at all with the notion of him "discussing" things with Rudd out back or at the airport or wherever else he could find him. That works for me.

-- The trio also agreed that there's defintely a difference between wrecking somebody from behind & giving them a little bump to move them over. They seemed to also agree that it was pretty clear to most drivers which was which. Take that for what it's worth & put it into whatever context you choose, what struck me most about it was how quickly they agreed that there was a difference & that driver's knew that difference pretty readily.

-- Despite the talk about changing the points system, it's been mentioned many times that, of all the years of points champions, no plan ever considered by NASCAR would have changed the eventual champion. That cuts both ways I guess, I don't believe it would have the impact some people seem to expect and I don't believe you'll see much consideration of any plan that would change the outcome of a championship.

-- No way in hell you'll see any cut to the schedule any time in the near future. More likely, IMO, is that we'll see as many as 40 races per year before that happens. New York wants a race badly, several tracks want a second race, and there'll be strong resistance to doing much more damage to tracks on the existing schedule.

-- I whole-heartedly agree with the suggestion of mandatory green-flag finishes. It's already done in the CTS, it'll happen at some point in the NC (just practicing for the Nextel debut).

[RendeR]

This actually was the focus of a paper I am writing for my website:

Nascar has hit a plateau. They have three major divisions and two of them are dying a slow and ugly death. The average attendance at Busch races has fallen off in a major way this season.

To correct this, and some other problems I propose the following:

At the end of this season, the winston cup and busch series are merged into 1 group of 86 drivers/teams

The teams finishing in odd positions in each series become Cup div A, the evenes become Cup Div B

They run the exact same tracks say 30 races, when div A is at Darlington, Div B could be out in california, you get the idea. To make things really interesting, have Both divisions at charlotte for a two week all start event + coca Cola 600 weekend.

The points awarded need to change as well, only the top 20 cars get points. The winner gets 200 second place 175 and so on down to 43rd.

Since BOTH div A and B will run all the same tracks, just at different schedules, the overall points race can be a combination of everyone's point totals, as a bonus you can crown divisional champions as well as the Cup champion in New York in December.

THe key here is that at the end of EACH year, the odd finishers and the even finishers move into their respective divisions for the following season, so that you never know until the end of the year who will be in each group the next year.

I see this as being beneficial in numerous ways:

A) more racing, two races on any given weekend one saturday night one sunday afternoon

B) elimination of the weaker busch series which noone gives a shit about either way, and the better developement of the busch drivers as they have to face cup quality drivers every week.

C) more money for NASCAR, more people will go to races. 60 events at 75% of a full house is always better than 30 races at 100% (I consider this a benefit because its probably the only way nascar would consider this initiative, it would also be a way to generate revenue for a traveling rescue crew instead of the hokey ass local firefighters they recruit for free each week)

D) more time off for the drivers and teams, which in turn should equate to better races because they can spend more time testing, and resting. Injuries would be far less traumatic to a teams season with more time to heal between events.

E) more exciting events, since every single point becomes more important based on what the other division results look like. ("man DJ ran great last night, I've gotta finish in the top 5 to stay with him this week")


I'm working up a web column about this, with samples of season and such, what are your thoughts?


Ren

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA

-- Despite the talk about changing the points system, it's been mentioned many times that, of all the years of points champions, no plan ever considered by NASCAR would have changed the eventual champion.


This can't be used as an argument against change, because drivers are working within the current system. If the points were different, you may see different strategies. How many times have you heard a driver say, "I'm racing for points, so I didn't charge to the front, or take chances" ? Happens all the time. But, if they had a 200 point lead and the winner received an extra 50 points (just for sake of argument), he would have to make sure second place in the points doesn't win too many, or his lead is shot. As it stands now, 200 point leads at this point in the season are pretty air-tight.

Kenseth will take ZERO risks from here on out.

Does it make racing less exciting? Maybe. Does it make the points race less exciting? Sure as shit.

[Bonegavel]

dola,

if you think "sure things" are fun to watch, then by all means, I'm sure you like the current system. But how exciting would it be to make sure that the last race of the season decided the winner, as in the Super Bowl? Would you watch the super bowl if you knew who the world champions were weeks ahead? Maybe, maybe not. If it is your team, of course, but if it were just another game, most non-fans of the teams in question would pass. However, the super bowl is wathced by all NFL fans, irrespective of who is playing.

That is one thing that makes football great. You can go undefeated and reach the super bowl and still not be world champions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Render, since you asked for some comments, I'll offer a few (strictly FWIW)

-- I'd have to see some numbers to back up the assertion that the CTS is "dying a slow death". With at least one new race added for next season & the arrival of Toyota to spark additional interest & investment, I'd think it's doing okay for itself right now (and far better than I ever expected it to do).

-- The "two divisions" idea is something I used to be far more fond of than I am now. And that was just within the WC field. I'd prefer to see the WC field trimmed back to around 36 each week instead of 43 instead.

-- As for merging WC & Busch, I can't see any way that works to do anything except kill off the BGN series completely. The BGN sponsors simply aren't spending enough money to field competitive WC teams and that's not going to change any time soon. As it is, the cost of playing at the WC level is so high that there's barely enough sponsors to go around, move another 40 teams or so up & those teams would simply cease to exist. I think the BGN series still has significant value, mostly in terms of "seat time", so I'd be leery of anything that hurts it or changes it much.

That's a few quick thoughts, maybe more on this later, after I get some work done.

Jon

[RendeR]

You brought up something I did leave out:



Salary Cap!


IF nascar wants to level the playing field without hurting the cars themselves, they have to put some sort of controls on how much a sponsor can give, or in essence, how much a team can collect and use.

For example:
the average winston cup car this season is taking in approximately 8.5 million in sponsorship funds.

the highest (from my fading memory) is the 15 million a year that budweiser is forking over to DEI.

The lowest of course being the almost non sponsored BAM racing dodge.

Now you tell me, which car is going to perform better?

Nascar needs to step up and get the reins around the sponsorship bucks. This will do a couple things:

bring more sponsors into the sport because they'll have a good idea of just how much they have to spend to get on acar, and if its controlled they'll be able to account for growth and inflation.

It will also even up the teams, since more weak end teams will be able to get some sponsorship that they may not be able to pull in currently.


There is a ton more to this, but the main idea is to create better competition by leveling the money mountain.


I personally think they also should limit teams to 3 cars maximum. I'm sick to death of the hendrick stable and the roush empire constaly overwhelming the single and even two car teams.


thanks for the input! I didn't really elaborate on the truck series, I see the CTS as becoming the lead in event to the cup race each weekend. and thus helping to grow that series more as well.

I do agree that smaller fields will make for better racing. I'm an advocate of 30 cars per division. this would let the best busch drivers get into cup, while relegating the others back to the trucks to earn their shot.

again, way too much stuff behind the scenes to make this all happen, and nascar isn't going to give up its cash cow anytime soon anyway....

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JeeberD
The reference was to the now banned poster Happy29, who was a huge Harvick fan. After he was banned he emailed SkyDog stating that he would come back "better and more powerful than ever."

Ah well... Actually it was "stronger and more powerful than ever", but I sure appreciated the reference. That guy was beyond bizarre. He still IM's me at least once a week. I usually just ignore him.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by RendeR
A) more racing, two races on any given weekend one saturday night one sunday afternoon

Problem with this is TV deals and sponsor dollars. Saturday night races will have a tough time going up against prime time shows. Bristol and Richmond currently get relegated to TNT/Fox Sports because NBC and Fox aren't going to bump Saturday Prime Time programming for NASCAR. Sponsors aren't going to want to pony up the same $'s for a Saturday "2nd tier" network as they are for Sunday afternoon on NBC or Fox.


B) elimination of the weaker busch series which noone gives a shit about either way, and the better development of the busch drivers as they have to face cup quality drivers every week.

I'm not so sure this would happen. Ken Schrader has had plenty of seat time and has competed at just about every level, but I don't think he would win like Tony Stewart, Matt Kenseth, or Ryan Newman if you put him in their equipment. I like Ken a lot, but he just isn't a top notch driver.


C) more money for NASCAR, more people will go to races. 60 events at 75% of a full house is always better than 30 races at 100% (I consider this a benefit because its probably the only way nascar would consider this initiative, it would also be a way to generate revenue for a traveling rescue crew instead of the hokey ass local firefighters they recruit for free each week)

More money for the tracks, not necessarily more money for NASCAR. A split series might actually reduce tv revenue.


D) more time off for the drivers and teams, which in turn should equate to better races because they can spend more time testing, and resting. Injuries would be far less traumatic to a teams season with more time to heal between events.

But with a Salary Cap/Sponsor Cap they won't have the money to do the extra testing. Less Prize money because they are running fewer races. More time off might result in poorer performance on the track. Drivers might not be as sharp.


E) more exciting events, since every single point becomes more important based on what the other division results look like. ("man DJ ran great last night, I've gotta finish in the top 5 to stay with him this week")

OR, you might end up with a division that has Jeff Gordon, Tony Stewart, Ryan Newman, Kurt Busch, and Jimmie Johnson and the other division with Jeremy Mayfield, Jimmy Spencer, Terry Labonte and Rusty Wallace. Also, by doing this you are absolutely destroying "rivalries" among drivers. Separate Busch and Spencer, Wallace and Gordon, Gordon and Gordon, Harvick and Gordon and things just aren't as intriguing. Yes, new rivalries might occur, but even if they did, they'd potentially be gone at the end of theyear.


I'm working up a web column about this, with samples of season and such, what are your thoughts?


Ren

Additional thoughts. Separate divisions would just fuel controversy. I can hear it now: "Yeah, we'd a dun a whole bunch better if we uz in that other division. Dey ain't got Jimmy Spencer, Robby Gordon, Todd Bodine and Steve Park wreckin' 'em ever week." Or: "Well, Bill Elliott and Mark Martin had great years last year, but now they're makin' it easy fer the drivers in that other division. They outghta retire."

Also, which division gets to run THE Daytona 500? Which division gets to run THE Brickyard 400? I don't think having TWO every year would work very well. You can't have one division run it one year and the other division run it the next, because you have them changing after EVERY season.

In regard to a Salary/Sponsor Cap, if Bud wants to pay 15 million to field a competitive team, to lock in a driver that is VERY marketable, and to have their car at the front of the race so they get lots of air time, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Some sponsors probably feel that "you get what you pay for" and are willing to pony up. Do you think DuPont, Home Depot, Budweiser, or DeWalt think its worth the millions of dollars for the exposure they get? You bet! If Matt Kenseth doesn't have the dollars to field a top flight team and starts sucking, do you think DeWalt would walk away? You bet.

I think a cap might bring in lesser sponsors, and possibly make the weaker teams a little more competitive, but it might also drive away some of the bigger sponsors because they aren't getting as much bang for their buck.