[NOTE: I originally posted this on the ThatsRacin.com forum, and I got a request to post it here, so there you go. All comments welcome, of course.] Let me start with this: I really have no problem with the "fairness" of the NASCAR points system. All of the guys play by the same rules, so throw "fairness" into the discussion clouds the issue. What the NASCAR points system ISN'T is sensible. A point system is only as good as it is in the MOST ridiculous of circumstances. Did you know that (in a non-Chase-world) a guy could lead EVERY lap of 24 races and finish last in the other 12, and he would LOSE the title by over 100 points to a guy who just rode around and finshed eighth in every race? That's CRAZY. I think we can ALL agree on some key points: - Winning a Nextel Cup racing is friggin' hard in this age of so many top teams and overall series depth, and it's about to get harder with the Toyota teams coming in. - When there is a "big one" on a superspeedway, there really isn't any difference in the finishing positions of the guys who got wrecked and are 32nd through, say, 38th. However, in NASCAR's current world that's an 18-point difference settled over basically semantics, and since they've had a title decided by eight points, to have the potential of a title decided because one car got wrecked a little bit worse in a big one than another, makes little sense. - A guy who rides around in 20th all day doesn't deserve more points than a guy who ran 3rd all day but got wrecked with two laps to go. I think these are some legitimate beefs that you may or may not agree with: - NASCAR currently punishes teams for bad finishes more than they reward teams for good ones. Don't think so? Before the California race Matt Kenseth had as many wins as JJ (4), more seconds (3-2), more thirds (3-1), and more top 5s (13-8). How could JJ be ahead of Matt in points? Well, the answer is that Matt's worst finish is 38th and JJ's worst is 32nd. If you take that 18 point difference away Matt is ahead. Shouldn't the guys' 23 (out of 24) BEST finishes count more than their ONE worst finish? - There was a time when a guy like David Pearson would show up at half of the races and with seven or eight of them, so I can see why this "reward all of the competitors and punish the guys who cherry-pick"-mentality came from, but that's hardly the case anymore. Every guy going for the title shows up at EVERY race, barring injury, and even injured they make silly starts to collect points. When Tony Stewart was hurt last year, shouldn't he have had the chance to heal up for a couple of weeks out of the car instead of risking further injury to get the points for 25th-place? - Kasey Kahne has five wins out of 25 races. If he wins tonight and doesn't make the Chase, and wins a couple of the races in the Chase he'd have, say, NINE wins with NO chance to win the title. You might be able to rationalize that to another NASCAR fan, but that's a hard concept to explain to a non-NASCAR fan. Here's what I'd like to see: A points-system that rewards guys for winning and finishing up front. Period. And, just coincidentally, I have an idea for one. (One that ditches the Chase, becuase it's just not necessary.) - Award points to the top 12 finishers. 20-16-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. Why the top 12? Well, guys like Michael Waltrip, Dave Blaney, Travis Kvapil, and Scott Wimmer have a combined ZERO top-12 finishes. Joe Nemechek's finish? 13th. Jeremy Mayfield's? 13th. TODAY with NASCAR's math, a win and a bad luck 40th finish give you NINETY less points than two fifths. Not bad, right? Well, in twelve races you could win six and finish 40th six, and be a whopping 540 points behind the guy with twelve fifths. That is nonsense, and I think this a fair balance, rewarding wins and consistency. - Bonus points: one for winning the pole, one for leading a lap, and two for leading the most laps. Why a point for the pole? Well, it IS competitive and someone "wins" the pole. This gives a guy who wins the pole and leads the most laps four bonus points, so if he breaks or gets wrecked he would receive as many points as a guy who finishes a ride-around-all-day ninth. Seems fair to me, and better than the first guy getting eighty points less than the second. - I didn't think this up because of the Chase, either. How's this scenario? Right now, say Dale Jr. won all eleven remaining races and led EVERY lap for the rest of the year (in a non-Chase world where the points are NOT reset). All Matt Kenseth would have to do is finish FIFTH in every race to keep a points-lead large enough to win the title. (5343-5326, btw.) You want to live in a world where a guy wins ONE-THIRD of the races and doesn't win the title over a guy who won four? Just because it happened before doesn't make it right. I've tracked the points using my system all year. Here are the top-15. Matt Kenseth - 236 Jimmie Johnson - 212 Tony Stewart - 198 Kasey Kahne - 184 Jeff Gordon - 177 Kevin Harvick - 171 Kyle Busch - 160 Dale Earnhardt Jr. - 155 Carl Edwards - 145 Greg Biffle - 133 Denny Hamlin - 132 Jeff Burton - 126 Kurt Busch - 113 Mark Martin - 109 Ryan Newman - 73 Edwards and Biffle ahead of Hamlin? Hamlin's got two wins to Biffle's one and Edwards' zero, yes. But Edwards has finished second twice, third twice, and fourth three times, while Biffle has only five finished fourth or better and Hamlin has four. Hamlin sits high in points right now because he's got a whopping TEN finishes between ninth and twelfth. The best part of this system is with 24 points maximum each weekend, can you guess how many guys are mathematically eliminated from the Championship as of right now? ZERO. David Gilliland could win every pole and lead every lap for the rest of the year and he'd have 264 points, and if none of the guys on the list had a top-12 finish for the rest of the year, he'd be the Nextel Cup Champion. Ridiculous? Yes, but a guy with eleven wins losing to guys who have five or less is also ridiculous. Since a guy who wins the pole and leads every lap scores 24 points and the guy who finishes second scores 16, any driver can make up eight points on the field in any given week, so right now anyone 88 points back or closer (right now Junior is 81 back) would control his own destiny, and would win the title by leading every lap for the rest of the season. Right now, Kasey Kahne couldn't even do that if he's not lucky enough to make the Chase. I really think this is a foolproof way to go. You can punch SO many holes in NASCAR's current system that it makes it hard for the non-NASCAR fan to understand the logic. I've run this back through every season since 1960, and it's easy to argue for every champion that I got. Now, I know what you're thinking, namely, "1960?! What are you some kind of huge geek?" Yes, but that's beside the point. I started doing past seasons to see if Mark Martin would get his ever-elusive championship my way. Answer: No, and he only ended up with one second-place instead of four. I also ended up with EVERY actual NASCAR champion (except for good ol' BP, God bless him, who basically won in 1973 because he ran every race, only winning one, while David Pearson won eleven that year and Yarborough and Petty won ten between them) in the top three and usually the top-two until 2004, when Kenseth (the real champ) finished fifth. (A lot of guys won either way, but not too many.) Some other oddities (while noting that circumstances aren't taken into account like, for example, 2004 when Kenseth clinched before the last race and wound his motor too tight and blew in the meaningless final race that year): - In the Chase era, Tony Stewart still would've won the 2005 title, but Jimmie Johnson (eight wins) would've won the 2004 title over Jeff Gordon (who actuall scored the most points that year but lost to Kurt Busch). - Jeff Gordon would have five championships, including four straight from '95-'98, taking the '96 title away from Terry Labonte who won two races that year to Gordon's ten. - Dale Earnhardt keeps five championships, losing the '80 crown to Cale Yarborough (who had one more win, three more top-fours and 14 poles to Dale's zero) and the '93 crown to Rusty Wallace, who won ten races to Earnhardt's six. - Incidentally, that fact is why I kept going back, thanks to racing-reference.info, so I could see how many titles the King would've had compared to the Intimidator. The King would've had six championships, losing his '64 and '72 titles but picking up the '63 title, a year in which he won 14 races and the actual champion (Joe Weatherly) won only three. This would be the list of champions since 1963, which would've been Petty's first title my way. Still a decent list in the grand scheme of things. SIX - Richard Petty FIVE - Dale Earnhardt, Jeff Gordon, Clae Yarborough THREE - Rusty Wallace, Darrell Waltrip, David Pearson TWO - Tony Stewart, Ned Jarrett ONE - Jimmie Johnson, Ryan Newman (over Kenseth), Bobby Labonte, Dale Jarrett, Davey Allison (over Kulwicki), Bill Elliott, Terry Labonte, Bobby Allison, Bobby Isaac [NOTE 2: Here's the update after Richmond, or "Bristol" if your name is Bill Weber. The number after the points is where they ranked last week.] 1 Matt Kenseth 242 1 2 Jimmie Johnson 213 2 3 Kasey Kahne 199 4 4 Tony Stewart 198 3 5 Kevin Harvick 192 6 6 Kyle Busch 179 7 7 Jeff Gordon 177 5 8 Dale Earnhardt Jr. 155 8 9 Carl Edwards 145 9 10 Greg Biffle 141 10 11 Denny Hamlin 134 11 12 Jeff Burton 131 12 13 Mark Martin 119 14 14 Kurt Busch 113 13 15 Ryan Newman 73 15