Subscribe to this blog's feed« Big Apple fans...sour towards NASCAR? | Main | Are the little guys gone for good? »
November 01, 2005
So, who deserves the Cup title?
By DAVID GREEN
Seven races down, three to go, and the inevitable tight battle for the Nextel Cup rages on. Once in a blue moon, somebody may put together a dominant end-of-season streak and lock up the title early under the new Chase format, but it didn't happen last year, and it's not going to happen this year.
The Chase format, as has been discussed ad nauseum, skews conventional thinking; any of the 10 drivers (yes, any of them) had a legitimate shot to win when the points were reshuffled and the 10th-place guy found himself within 45 points of first place. What has happened in the first seven races, and what will happen in the last three, owes almost everything to chance and very little to "earning" something in the old-fashioned sense of it.
So, who's the most deserving driver? Who truly deserves to win the 2005 Nextel Cup?
It says here that the three guys at the top of the charts right now are the most deserving candidates.
Tony Stewart has been racing during the Chase very much the way he raced at the beginning of the season. He has done everything but win. He has led laps, dominated races, finished second or in the top five with a regularity that no one else has shown.
Jimmie Johnson has been resurgent after a hot start and a lukewarm middle of the year. Much like last year, he's the winningest driver among the Chasers, and yet he finds himself in second place.
Greg Biffle has been one of the best performers on the track for the past year-and-a-half now, not just this season.
Odds are that those three will decide it amongst themselves. But, as we said earlier, the Chase format defies conventional thinking. Carl Edwards and Ryan Newman are stout talents; all it would take is a sub-par performance, not necessarily a catastrophic misstep, by the top three, and one of them could inherit the big prize.
One of the two sentimental favorites among the Geritol set still has a long-shot chance. If any driver ever deserved a championship, it's Mark Martin. It would be a great, great story if Mark rallied to win this one, but he and Roush Racing teammate Matt Kenseth may be just a little too far off the pace to make it up in three races.
Happily, Rusty Wallace already has a Cup trophy in his collection, because he's not going to win this one in his farewell season. Kurt Busch, likewise, can be counted out, along with Jeremy Mayfield.
I mean no disrespect to any of them, but none of the seven from Edwards and Newman down to Mayfield truly deserve the 2005 championship based on an evaluation of their season-long consistency.
The same could be said about last year's champ, Busch. Surely Jimmie Johnson, Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Jeff Gordon were the most deserving drivers from a February-through-November perspective, and Johnson, without a doubt, was the class performer in the last 10 races.
Old-school thinking will be served this year if Stewart, Johnson or Biffle emerge with the Cup, because they have performed best all season long, and the winner will have done the best job in the 10-race playoff. The only sour grapes with any legitimacy would be from the Stewart camp, should Smoke not win it, when they recall how that 185-point lead after 26 races melted to 5 as the points were redistributed.
Under the old format, Stewart would have been a prohibitive favorite. Certainly, he has run more than well enough to have maintained the lead he enjoyed prior to the Chase races.
But that's not the format we use now. Happily, the three best drivers all season are the three most likely to win the whole thing. May the best man win.
November 1, 2005 | Permalink
Comments
amen.
Posted by: Larry | Nov 1, 2005 7:46:29 PM
whatever.
This is the only spectator sport in America where the fans refuse to accept the fact that whatever the hell happened during the regular season to get their teams to the post season doesn't mean a damned thing once the post-sason begins. In all other major US sports the championship comes down to ONE game. At that point, nothing prior to that game matters. Their performance, their winning percentage, their consistancy - nothing. AND THEY'RE ALL GIVEN A CHANCE TO START ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. I don't see why NASCAR should be any different.
That's the whole idea behind a post season. You seperate the men from the boys and then you let the men fight it out amongst themselves.
Who deserves to win any championship? Well, obviously whoever wins it - regardless of the rules package.
Posted by: the6and9 | Nov 1, 2005 8:31:19 PM
I have a few disagreements with 6and9 but I think the cream has risen to the top. This is the format NASCAR wants and as happens the best have stayed at the front. Deserved and earned might be the key words...but I think both answers will be Stewart!
Posted by: Keith | Nov 1, 2005 9:36:38 PM
Wendell Scott deserves the Championship.
Now please stand back for fear of the stampede for the record books.
Well all except you Keith somehow I tend to believe your memory contains the reference.
Not that you're old or anything. :-)
Posted by: Marc | Nov 1, 2005 10:31:11 PM
The reason race fans can't accept the playoff format is because, in the 'traditional' sports, every team doesn't play every other team every game. Neither is every team involved in each playoff game. That's a considerable difference. With racing, you don't have different division champs racing against each other, just the same 43 guys that have competed all along. That's why the whole thing is so blatantly wrong. And why many fans will never view a 'wireless company champeen' in the same light as a true, season long title holder.
Posted by: Sally | Nov 2, 2005 6:14:48 AM
There ya go pickin' on the old guy ;-)
Posted by: Keith | Nov 2, 2005 7:22:44 AM
I think "the6and9" would automatically post a response of "white!" if I wrote something with the word "black" in it, but -- as he/she put it -- whatever.
It's true -- post-season playoffs are all the rage these days. But things have not always been that way. In the ancient days before divisional playoffs and league championship series, Major League Baseball had the perfect format. There was a lengthy round-robin season, from which two teams emerged as pennant winners, and there was a best-of-seven championship series between those two teams. When all was said and done, there was no question about which was the best team in baseball. There was no "fluke" champion. There was no "if," "and" or "but." They were the champions, the best -- period. The "men" had truly been "seperated" [sic] from the "boys."
No other sport has ever had such a perfect format, and certainly none does now. While there was never any legitimate complaint that the World Series champions were not the best team in baseball, there is often a good, solid argument that the NCAA basketball champion, the Super Bowl champion, and now, the NASCAR champion is not necessarily the best and most deserving competitor. These playoffs are entertaining and they have proven to be enormous moneymakers, but they often are much less accurate than the oft-criticized polls that still figure largely in determining the championship team in college football.
It may be impossible for "the6and9" to understand and appreciate this, but to some of us, what happened during the regular season OUGHT TO MATTER. Otherwise, why play a regular season?
To all of those who love playoffs, a hearty toast and "amen!" to your passion. Just don't confuse "playoff champion" with "best overall competitor," because in any kind of playoff that renders regular-season performance irrelevant (as NASCAR's Chase for the Cup largely does), there's a really good chance that the winner will NOT be the best of the pack -- merely the playoff survivor.
Posted by: David Green | Nov 2, 2005 7:55:01 AM
Tony Stewart has run as close to a perfect season as we have seen in a long time.If anybody but him wins the title it should be called the levigation cup.
Posted by: hostage94 | Nov 2, 2005 10:24:02 AM
David, you're 100% correct (and I'm not seeing where I disagreed with you - but I'll say..."black").
Of course, "playoff" scenarios are not always the fairest shake. Any time a wildcard team makes it to the big one, you have to ask yourself, "do they deserve to be there?" Well, by the rules of their system - yes. By the weight of their regular season record - no.
Fact is, NASCAR has created a post season, like it or not. I don't agree with it, but it's there and it likely won't go away.
Somebody said it - the cream will always rise to the top no matter what the situation. And remember - the guys in the chase were the best overall for 26 races. Now we get to find out who's the best of the best - according to the current rules, Lady Luck and the whim of the race gods.
"Deserving" doesn't fit in this rules package and is left to debate and opinion.
That is, unless Smoke wins it.
Posted by: the6and9 | Nov 2, 2005 10:48:57 AM
Well said, the6and9. Thanks for your input.
Posted by: David Green | Nov 2, 2005 12:17:54 PM
Tony Stewart has had the best overall season.
Posted by: 19Jay12 | Nov 2, 2005 2:27:43 PM
heres a crazy idea. Drivers with the most wins wins the title. If a tie, the start with 2nd place finishes. It would eliminate cars riding around 89 laps down.
Posted by: clay | Nov 2, 2005 2:33:35 PM
Tony Stewart deserves to win the Championship. I don't know what everybody else does, but I go by the old points system & feel that it is, by far, the fairest way of determining who the true champion will be. Tony so far wins it hands down. He is still leading the points & they took a ton of points away from him when the so-called "Chase" (yuck) started. Under the old system, he would be leading by around 250 to 300 points. I am not certain of the exact amount.
Posted by: Jennifer | Nov 2, 2005 2:46:15 PM
I don't like to say any driver deserves the Championship but if i had to pick it would go to Tony Stewart. He has had the best season out of all the drivers. His stats are better this year then any driver. So if any driver deserves it then it would be Tony.
Posted by: Melissa | Nov 2, 2005 3:58:30 PM
Who deserves the championship....regardless of format Is Mark Martin
Posted by: BP | Nov 2, 2005 7:24:26 PM
I like Clay's idea. However, that would make way too much sense. Drivers racing for victory. mmmmmmmm
My opinion will be with many others.
Empty seats.
But hey, quit smoking....not ready to quit on Nascar. It is a monster we helped create, so we must share the blame.
David, I enjoy your column.
Posted by: Larry | Nov 2, 2005 7:30:28 PM
Larry,
Clay makes sense only in la la land. Ask Rusty he had the most wins and the most DNF's in the same year...Did he get or deserve the Cup? No! NASCAR wants to reward wins and consistency but I don't think they've found the right balance yet.
Posted by: Keith | Nov 2, 2005 7:59:08 PM
Mr.Green should check his stats before he writes! Tony has 5 wins & Jimmy only 4!
Stewart has shown he's a champion so, if he continues he will be! I HOPE SO!!!
GO SMOKE!!!
Posted by: br | Nov 2, 2005 8:00:42 PM
David - Good read, and interesting opinion.
6and9, very well said.
At the end of the day. As from part of what 6and9 said, ".... and is left to debate and opinion."
Isn't that what always NASCAR wants?
Posted by: Ann | Nov 3, 2005 8:45:59 AM
In any given race, it's the guy who leads the last lap that wins. Not who leads the most laps, not who had the best car etc. That's basically what any points championship comes down to. The points RACE is really no different than a single race. It doesn't matter who leads the most laps(wins), or who had the best car(#20 and #48 for sake of argument). That's why there was nothing wrong with the old format. It was a year long race, with many "lap leaders", many different "best" cars, etc. What matters is who is leading on the final lap(race #36).
It's really easy, nice, simple. Worked for a long time. Sometimes guy with most wins won, sometimes he didn't. But it was always fair. Then, TV contracts, target demographics, and market share got involved and fair wasn't good enough. Needed constant minute-by-minute excitement. Notr surprising for the ADD generation the corporate types so covet. Now, it's fake and contrived. I hate hearing about how last year was the "closest championship Race in NASCAR history". Like it just happened ala 1992(which was fantastic!). Why don't we just reset the points after race #35, all the top 10 start with the same points, and winner takes all? Then top 10 will have the "closest race in NASCAR history" EVERY YEAR!
Posted by: Hulksdaddy | Nov 3, 2005 4:56:44 PM
Hey Keith,
You are correct about Nascar not finding the balance. Each time they change the point system, they dilute whatever "cup". While Clay's comment may be over-simplifying, that may not be a bad thing. I understand the importance of consistance. You mentioned Rusty, my favorite for years. But, to tell you the truth this is the year of relief. Rusty's beer has gone stale. (longbeforelatestskid) He is the perfect example of stroking into the top 10. There should be no one in the chase without a single victory. The shame is yes, they will adjust again sooner than later. So, down the road if anyone cares then....will it be, well, Gordon was robbed the championship in 2004 as a result of the new point system? I submit that the point system was changed to preserve the record 7 of King Richard & that other guy. If Tony does not win this championship, the only guy deserving is...CARL EDWARDS. He is pedaling harder every week, than any of em'!
Posted by: Larry | Nov 4, 2005 7:01:09 PM
Hey again Keith,
Forgive my ramble as I got a bit off topic up there. On Rusty. In 93' & 94' when he led with 10 wins, and 8 respectivly he did also blow a bunch of motors. I am not saying he was a champ those years. But, mostly when he blew those motors..he was running up front trying to win races. As opposed to this year where he was racing to make the top ten. Just like seeing racing to win.
Posted by: Larry | Nov 5, 2005 9:19:59 AM
Thanks to all for your comments. As Ann points out, all the discussion just underscores the popularity of this sport we all love.
To "br," what I meant by saying Johnson is the winningest driver among the Chasers was that he has the most victories in the Chase, just like last year. Thought it went without saying that Smoke and Biffle are the winningest drivers all season long. I had written paragraphs about how Biffle was the big winner early on, and Stewart the big winner in the middle stages of the season, but cut them for brevity's sake. My fault there.
To Clay, I believe there's a compelling need to more richly reward race winners than NASCAR presently does, but I also acknowledge that there ought to be some value in consistent high finishes as a secondary consideration. For example, if one driver has 10 victories but also a half-dozen DNFs or very poor performances while another driver has seven or eight victories and also posts a greater number of top-five or top-10 finishes, the latter driver has a good claim to championship rights. What rankles me is a lopsided situation such as 1985, when Bill Elliott wins 11 times (including three Winston Million races), Darrell Waltrip wins three times, and Waltrip is named champion. No disrespect to Waltrip, nor to Matt Kenseth vs. Ryan Newman in 2003 and Kurt Busch vs. Jimmie Johnson last year; all three champions did exactly what the system required them to do. I'm just saying it's a flawed system, with or without a Chase, that skews the outcome that badly by diminishing the importance of winning races.
To "hulksdaddy," amen to your observation about that '92 battle. We've already had a closer outcome in the points battle, and a nail-biter it was, but no Chase could ever replicate the kind of genuine drama that '92 gave us.
Posted by: David Green | Nov 5, 2005 6:45:57 PM
Post a comment
Advertisements
