Just for Fun! Under the old points format would the 48 have won four in a row?

Not to take anything away from the 48 team but! Would they have won four in a row under the old points format? I don't know how to figure this out!
But someone out there can! And if he did "NOT". Should there be a asterisk * by his name in the record book. And if he did "NOT" get four in a row under old format. Then we could all say the new format favored the 48 and it gave him a advantage to winning four in a row. (Your thoughts)

Views: 37

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bigzoom on November 23, 2009 at 2:56pm
jayski has the old point system format and the answer is NO, he wouldn't have
Permalink Reply by Scott B on November 23, 2009 at 3:17pm
He would have won this season's championship either way.
Permalink Reply by JoCo on November 23, 2009 at 7:48pm
In 2007 he definitely would not have won--Jeff Gordon was so sick that year
Permalink Reply by Scott B on November 23, 2009 at 8:25pm
JJ had 10 wins in 2007...Jeff Gordon had 6...
Permalink Reply by JoCo on November 25, 2009 at 1:11am
But JJ would not have won the championship I don't think...I'm not positive, but I thought Jayski did something regarding that. I could be wrong though.

And also, Jimmie Johnson did win 4 of the last 5 races that season
Permalink Reply by alan4s on November 23, 2009 at 3:32pm
The premise is flawed. When the chase was announced, the strategy changed. Teams in chase contention won't run the race the same way as they would have if there were no chase. The 48 team is probably the best example of this. They lay back somewhat in the first 26 races - do well enough to make the chase, but don't go for broke to get a win; then pour it on once the chase starts. Looking at finisihes under the current point system, but applying the points from the previous system really doesn't tell you anything worthwhile.

Using similar logic, one could say that Robby would be out of business if not for the top-35 rule, because he would be consistently out-qualified and would have missed a lot of races. Yes Robby qualifies poorly now, but that's partly because he doesn't have to qualify well to make the races. If the rules were different then the effort and emphasis would be different as well.
Permalink Reply by rpmscott on November 23, 2009 at 4:19pm
I feel the system that is in place now, can favor one driver and not another when it comes to the last 12 races.

I don't want a change! I just think the 48 had a advantage getting the four in a row over Cale Yarborough.
Permalink Reply by JUSTIN GALBREATH on November 24, 2009 at 10:31am
Exactly
Permalink Reply by JUSTIN GALBREATH on November 24, 2009 at 10:33am
I agree, under the old system, last 5 races would have been a cruise for JJ
Permalink Reply by Ben Cartwright on November 23, 2009 at 4:30pm
The chase format sucks, plain and simple. I'm not saying that because JJ won 4 in a row, it doesn't make sense to give 12 guys a shot at the championship, it's unfair to the guy who was leading the points, all that work in 26 races could be flushed down the toilet in just 10 races. The format should have never changed.
Permalink Reply by Lance on November 23, 2009 at 5:35pm
Here is why the chase sucks. Under the old format, there were 2-5 people point racing while everyone else was racing for the win. Now, there are 15 drivers points racing for the majority of the regular season followed by 12 drivers poiny racing the last 10 races. Yesterday's race was one of the best of the year and that was because everyone but the 5 and 48 were racing to WIN.
Permalink Reply by Lance on November 23, 2009 at 5:23pm
Dumb argument. I guarantee the 48 wins the championship every year no matter the format. Why can't people get over this? Do you honestly think that the strategy would be the same w/o the chase? It's well documented that the 48 experiments in June, July, and August in order to get ready for the chase.

RSS

© 2024   Created by TOG.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service