| 0 |
Subject: New Playoff format
Posted by: Revvingparson
- Sustainer [59856912] Sun, Jan 11, 2004, 22:03
I'm not sure that i like the concept. But I know that I would have a better chance of liking it if during the "playoff" portion they attended tracks that were reprensative of the different styles of track: short(Bristol & Richmond-talk about excitment), a road course, pocono, Talladegga, darlington, as well as one of the cookie cutter courses. But if the vast majority of the tracks are going to be the cookie cutter courses, then it's a lousy idea that will not test the drivers overall abilities during the "playoffs". |
| 1 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Mon, Jan 12, 2004, 16:52
|
I agree Revvingparson. I'm all for a playoff-style format, but it needs to be more representative of the sport. As it is, the final 10 races of this season are: New Hampshire (1 mi. "flat" Oval)
Dover (1 mi. "banked" Oval)
Talladega (Superspeedway/Plate race)
Kansas (1.5 mi. "flat" Oval)
Lowe's (1.5 mi. "banked" Oval)
Martinsville (1/2 mi. "flat" Oval)
Atlanta (1.5 mi. "banked" Oval)
Phoenix (1.0 mi. "flat" Oval)
Darlington (1.4 mi. "banked" Oval)
Homestead (1.5 mi. "banked" Oval) That's all just way too similar to be determining a champion. There needs to be at least 1 road course and at least 1 visit to Bristol if they're going to have a legitimate "playoff." Pocono I could live without, though separating the races there by more than 5 races probably wouldn't hurt.
|
| 2 | Sludge
Leader
ID: 25919714
Wed, Jan 14, 2004, 01:38
|
Revvingparson -
While I agree that I'd like to see a road course and Bristol in there, I don't see how in the world you can think that the "vast majority" of the final 10 tracks are "cookie cutter" tracks.
Kansas, Lowes, and Atlanta are as close to cookie cutter as you get in that group, but each one of those requires distinctly different driving styles. You barely have to brake at Atlanta, whereas Lowes is all about when you brake. If you force me to throw out those three, you actually have a very eclectic collection of tracks (and, I would argue, you still do even with those three in the mix). New Hampshire is a speedway that races like a short track. For the life of me, I don't see how people can get around Dover. Talladega is the obligatory plate race. Martinsville is one of my favorite tracks to watch, and one of the more demanding tracks on the drivers and cars (I can't, for the life of me, imagine having to brake and downshift then upshift 1000 times). Phoenix and Darlington are both unique tracks, plus you have the history of Darlington. Homestead used to be very similar to New Hampshire, but with the new banking it promises to host some good 3-wide 150 MPH racing around the turns.
I would prefer to see Atlanta or Kansas replaced with Bristol, though. Watching an Atlanta race can get pretty boring after a while. And although I'd like to see a road course in there, I'd concede that ovals is generally what NASCAR is all about if I, for some reason, ever find myself arguing for a road race with a purist.
|
| 3 | Punk42AE
ID: 5734288
Wed, Jan 14, 2004, 12:17
|
I agree with you Sludge. Atlanta is a boring race because its like oldschool plate races. If you have a good car your going to run away, so after the first 100 laps or so it is all setup, (althought when you throw the Lucky Dog into the races it changes things up). Replace Atlanta with the Bristol Night Race and thats it. Like you said a road course wouldn't make any sense. If there were 5-6 different road tracks out of the 36 races I could understand, but with only 2 and they bring in "hired guns" for those races there isn't much of a point for it in a playoff.
|
| 4 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Sat, Jan 17, 2004, 14:58
|
Punk42AE, only the teams who are not in contention bring in hired guns for road courses. Besides, do you think an owner is going to sit a driver who is in the 10-team playoff for a road course? If he does, he's essentially given up the title. As for how many races the road courses constitute, it's 2 out of 36. That's about 5.5%. I don't see why they then can't be 10% of a playoff. It's not that big of a stretch. By saying you would only be for it if there were 5-6 different road tracks out of 36 races, you're saying a type of track must be about 14-17% of the schedule before it can be 10% of the playoff system. That's a bit high, IMHO. Given the diversity that a road course would add to the playoffs and towards determining the "best" driver, I think it needs to be part of the playoffs. Either that, or get rid of road courses all together. If they're not important enough to be part of a playoff, why have them at all? And maybe that's the better question in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|