Chase, we hardly knew ye

By DAVID GREEN

Changes in the Chase for the Cup? Well, of course -- the outdated thing will be three years old this year, for cryin' out loud. In today's MTV-loving, immediate-satisfaction-demanding, attention-deficit-disorder-plagued society, NASCAR is about two years overdue in overhauling this oh-so-yesterday antique.

We should have known, when Tony Stewart won last year's Chase without scoring a victory in the final 10 races, that alarm bells were clanging in Daytona Beach. It was under the radar of most of us because Stewart, riding a season-long bulletproof consistency and a scorching mid-season streak in which he won five times, was pretty much a consensus pick as the driver most deserving of the 2005 championship.

That's in stark contrast to 2003, when poor Matt Kenseth had the same sort of season as Stewart, except for the mid-season winning spurt, and claimed the final Winston Cup with only one victory, while Ryan Newman was winning eight races. On the heels of Kenseth's title, quicker than you could say "uh-oh," NASCAR instituted the Chase for the Cup.

The problem with the Chase was that, while it did create a playoff-like dramatic atmosphere in which the season champion was determined, it did not fix the "problem" (as some perceive it) in NASCAR's championship points system -- specifically, that it does not adequately and appropriately reward the winners of races.

The only adjustment in the points that came with the 10-race Chase was an extra five points for the winner. That did, at least, address the ridiculous scenario in which a driver could finish second but, if he led the most laps, receive the same number of points as the race winner.

It was a step in the right direction, but only a microscopic step. People go home or turn off their television sets after a race remembering two things: (1) who won and (2) who might have been involved in an unusual incident (a spectacular crash, a pit-road miscue, et cetera). Somehow, that has been lost in the promotion (hyping) of a season-long championship. Races have been reduced to near-insignificance except for their equal shares in the "big picture."

A system that provides real incentive for winning races would run contrary to that way of thinking. It would award 100 points to the winner and drop by as much as 25 to 50 percent for second place. It would reward no one who did not finish in the top 25 percent of the rundown.

Such a system might well make a mockery of a 10-race playoff. It would be much less likely to produce a controversial champion over the full course of a season.

Does that mean NASCAR won't address the issue of appropriately rewarding race winners when it revamps the Chase? I won't mislead anybody by intimating that I have any idea.

The championship will be whatever NASCAR determines it will be, and that's really all that matters. The sanctioning body is never going to please everyone, especially among the ranks of spectators and the media. Competitors are going to do their best to work the system (whatever it is) to their advantage.

In that sense, anyway, the champ will almost always be the correct and deserving one.