Why points systems are a fallacy (in NASCAR) and an alternative (2019 UDATE!!!!!!!!)

In major professional sports there is way too determine a winner. It is through the use of points. The NFL uses points too determine a winner. Baseball uses "runs" which in reality is points, Basketball, soccer (futbol) and everyone else uses points. NASCAR has too since 1949. However here is where i have a problem with using a points system. NASCAR has had some good ones (2004-2006 Chase. Which in my opinion was the best one they had) too using miles completed or some such thing that has you dividing by 9 and going 600 spots too the right of the decimal point. For a long time i have seen fans come up with different point systems that fit a narrative. However it is a fallacy. Point systems can manipulated by anyone too fit whatever they want. You can even make it that "whom ever earned the least amount of points is champion." Forever how many different systems used, it is all a manipulate of using "points" themselves too fit a narrative or whatever else.

My alternative is simple: Most wins means you are champion. However you can only miss 6 races due too injury and have too run every race.
However since it is very possible that 2 or more drivers can be tied in wins i have come with tiebreakers

• Top 5 finishes
• Poles won
• Laps Lead

Average finish will be used for season standings for those who do not win. With poles being a tiebreaker, which is a chance for qualifying too be rained out. With NASCAR using rounds, once the 1st round is over the field is basically set. If qualifying never happens and goes by practice speeds then the pole does not count toward the tiebreaker.

Now i will go through seasons (since 1972 when NASCAR went too a standard schedule) too show for years that who would be championship eligible. And the pros and cons for years using this system. I will also being using Racing-Reference.info and NASCAR.com as a source and reference for some years.


1972: Richard Petty and Bobby Allison won 18 races between them (8 for Petty, 10 for Allison). Allison would have been champion that year. Their numbers are also very comparable in terms of top 5s. Allison leads in Pole but Petty leads in laps lead. But Allison would be champion because he won more races and would have clinched with 2 races left. But he was one of the 2 best drivers that year.

1973: Racing-Reference and NASCAR.com have different champions for this year. NASCAR.com has Cale Y. as champion over Petty. Racing-Reference has Benny Parsons over Cale Y. David Pearson won more races then anyone that year, however he cherry picked the season, so he isn't championship eligible. So is basically comes down too Cale and Petty. Petty won 6 races too Cales 4. Cale also has more top 5s, laps lead and poles then Petty. However NASCAR.com has Cale beating Petty by 4 points. So the difference is minimal between them. Racing Reference uses the championship system NASCAR used back then, which isn't a far metric in my opinion. However I must preface that my system wouldn't work well for this year since Pearson cherry picked the season and won 11 races. Which messes up the results. Pearson had a supreme year but his cherry picking takes him out of championship contention.



NASCAR.com 1973 Racing Reference 1973

1974: Racing Reference has a more complete record of this season. This season has Petty and Cale tied for wins at 10 each. Which means it would have too go too tiebreakers. Petty has 1 more top 5 finish then Cale does. So Cale would be denied a championship by 1 5th place or better finish. Cale and Petty were 2 of the best drivers that race every race that year. So either are worthy champions for this year, but I'd still give the nod too Petty.
Racing Reference 1974

1975: What is there too say. Petty toke the whole field too the woodshed this year. He won 13 times. Was by far the best driver all year in most stat categories including 2 of the 3 tie breakers. Moving on.

1976: Cale Y wins 9 times in route too being champion under this system. He also has the tiebreakers top 5s and lap lead. On a interesting note, David Pearson won 10 times but ran 22 out of 30 races. If he ran 2 more races, he would have been champion. Although Cale had the better overall year, including tiebreakers. Pearson would be champion if he ran 2 more races. So this system wouldn't work for this year.

1977: Cale would once again be champion. He wins 9 races and has 2 of the 3 tiebreakers in his favour. No one else comes close. Deserving champion.

1978: Same song, different verse. Cale dominates the field and wins easily.

1979: And interesting year. DW would champion with 7 wins. Petty would have 5 wins. Petty has more top 5s but D.W. would have more laps lead and poles. Using a points system (Latford), Petty beats D.W. by 11 points. This is year i would be okay with either Petty or Waltrip being crowned champion.

1980: Dale Earnhardt would win the championship under the Latford system. However Cale Y. would champion under most wins system. However it is close. They are tied in top 5s but Cale destroys Earnhardt in poles (14 too 0) and has lead a crap ton more laps then Earnhardt did. Also too note Darrell Waltrip had 5 wins but was less impressive then Earnhardt or Cale. Earnhardt beat Cale by only 19 points. Cale won 1 more race then Earnhardt did.
Racing Reference 1980

1981: D.W. would champion under most wins. He won 12 times, tied with Bobby Allison in top 5s but lead in poles and laps lead. Deserving champion.

1982: D.W. would once again be champion. Leads in wins in all tiebreakers.

1983: Bobby Allsion and DW would tied in wins with 6 each. However Darrell beat Bobby in top 5s, poles and laps lead. Overall DW would be champion based on top 5 tiebreaker.

1984: Although Terry Labonte won the championship under the Latford system, D.W. would be champion by winning 7 races. By far lead more laps then anyone else that year. Labonte was slightly more consistent then Waltrip that year. But 7 wins beats 2 wins. DW is champion.

1985: Bill Elliot would be champion under most wins. DW won 3 races. Goes too show the Latford system didn't reward winning enough.

1986: Tim Richmond would be champion under most wins. However Dale Earnhardt had the better year (lead more laps then anyone else and his stats are better then Richmonds.)  The Latford system got this one right.

1987: Dale Earnhardt had no worthy challenger all year. Latford system or most wins. He wins regardless.

1988: Bill Elliot and Rusty Wallace tied with 6 wins each. However due too top 5 tiebreaker (Rusty had 19 too Elliots 15). Rusty Wallace is champion.

1989: Rusty Wallace won 6 races, Dale Earnhardt won 5. However Earnhardt had 1 more top 5 finish over Rusty. It is close but the Latford system did a good job.

1990: Dale Earnhardt won 9 times. Secured all tiebreakers to boot.

1991: Dale Earnhardt would be champion using points however Harry Gant would be champion. He beats out Davey Allison in top 5 tiebreaker. Gant also won one more race then Earnhardt. Earnhardt top 10'd people too death.

1992: Bill Elliot and Davey Allison would tie with 5 wins each but Davey beats out Elliot in top 5s (by one) and barely beats Elliot out in laps lead (near a 100 lap difference).

1993: Rusty Wallace won 10 times too Earnhardts 6. Rusty is champion.

1994: Rusty Wallace won 8 times too Earnhardts 4 times. However Earnhardt year was superb. Latford system gets it right.

1995: Jeff Gordon won 7 races too Earnhardts 5. The two top 5 difference between them is negligible. Jeff Gordon is champion.

1996: The Latford system completely f***s over Jeff Gordon. Gordon dominated the whole year. 10 wins is more then 2.

1997: Jeff Gordon wins 10 times and is champion again.

1998: Jeff Gordon wins again with 13 wins.

1999: Jeff Gordon would be champion again however Dale Jarrett had one hell of a year. Jarrett would win 3 less races then Gordon. But Jarretts year was outstanding. The Latford system got it right

2000: Tony Stewart would be champion winning 6 times, however Bobby Labonte had a much better overall year. The Latford system gets it right.

2001: Jeff Gordon win the championship with 6 wins. He also collects all tiebreakers.

2002: Matt Kenseth would be champion by winning 5 races. However in the Latford system he is too far back. Tony Stewart is champion. Latford system got it right

2003: I think this season shows how bad the Latford system truly is. Ryan Newman won 8 times. He won 7 more races then Kenseth, 6 more top 5s then Kenseth,  a crap ton more poles and a crap ton more laps lead then Kenseth. Newman is champion. Yes, Newman finished 6th in points. Well in

2002 he Kenseth won more then anyone else, he wasn't as good as people ahead of him. Newman is equal if not better then people around and above him in points.

2004: Jimmie Johnson is champion with 8 wins.

2005: This is an interesting year. Greg Biffle and Tony Stewart are tied in wins going into Homestead. NASCAR would get their "game 7 moment." Since Biffle won the last race of the year, he'd be champion.

2006: Another interesting year. Kasey Kahne won 6 times however he isn't better then Johnson, Harvick or Stewart. However Stewart didn't make the Chase and Kahne didn't finish top 5 in the Chase. So between Harvick and Johnson. Harvick is champion based on Top 5 tiebreaker. Most wins wouldn't work for this year. I wouldn't say the Chase got it right either.


2007: Jimmie Johnson won 10 races (including 4 in a row). Jimmie is champion.

2008: Carl Edwards and Kyle Busch would be tied in wins going too Homestead. NASCAR would again get their "game 7 moment." Edwards is champion.

2009: Jimmie Johnson would win 7 times. Johnson is champion.

2010: Denny Hamlin wins 8 races. Jimmie Johnson won 6 race over all had a better year. Since the 48 was bad fast most of that year. They could have won 2 more races. Hamlin is champion.

2011: Harvick and Stewart were tied with 4 wins each going too Homestead.  Since Stewart won the race, he'd be champion. NASCAR gets its "game 7 moment."

2012: 3 guys had 5 wins this year, Keselowski, Johnson and Hamlin. Johnson would be champion because he has more top 5 finishes then either Keselowski or Hamlin.

2013: Kenseth would be champion. Having won 1 more race then Johnson.

2014: Brad Keselowski would be champion. His numbers are comparable too those around him. But his 6 wins gives him a leg up.

2015: Joey Logano is champion. He won 6 races. Harvick has 1 more top 5 then Joey but 3 less wins. Kyle Busch wouldn't be championship eligible because he missed more then 6 races.

 2016: Going too Homestead 5 guys would have a shot a the Championship. Johnson, Harvick, Busch18, Truex and Keselowski would be the eligible drivers. Since they were tied at 4 wins a piece, they would have too basically win the race outright too be champion. Now i'll go for each individual driver.

Martin Truex Jr.: Tied breakers do him no good. Would have too win the race period too be champion.

Jimmie Johnson: Same as Truex, tiebreakers do him no good. He would have too win the race outright.

Kyle Busch: The only driver based on my system that wouldn't need too win the race but would too finish from 2nd too 5th. If Harvick didn't when he'd be champion based on Top 5 breaker.

Kevin Harvick: Was one Top 5 finish behind Kyle Busch. If they tied in wins and Top 5 finish it would go too poles, since they are tied in poles it would go too laps lead. And Harvick (lead 1384 laps) would be champion over Kyle Busch (lead 1379 laps) by 5 more laps lead. Other then that scenraio playing out, he would have too win the race outright.

Brad Keselowski: Tiebreakers really do him no good. He would have too win the race outright too champion.

But since Johnson won the race. Jimmie Johnson is champion for 2016.

2017: Martin Truex Jr. wins 8 times. He is champion for 2017. Collects Top 5 and Laps Lead tiebreakers. (Busch 18 had poles covered)

2018: Kevin Harvick and Kyle Busch are tied with 8 wins. Harvicks 23 top 5 beats out Busch18s 22. Harvick is champion.

2019: Martin Truex Jr. had 7 wins. Therefore Truex wins the championship. However if Denny Hamlin had won he be tied with Truex on wins and Hamlin had more Top 5's (19) then Truex (15). That is about the only tie that could have happened.

For a refresher here are the years in which i think most wins would work:
1972, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018

And years were it wouldn't work:
1973, 1976, 1979, 1986, 1989, 1994, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2006.

In my opinion there are years with regardless of what system used the same people would be champion or guys who got hosed would be champion (Jeff Gordon 1996.) Yes there are years where I'll admit that the Latford system worked however we need too remember that the Latford system was meant too make guys show up and run every race. Once guys did show up, it should have gone under a overhaul too reward winning more. I should also note that i viewed the years as a complete season long championship. No chase or anything. I think a season long most wins would be work. Work as hell of a lot better then what NASCAR currently has.

Is this system perfect? Hell no it is not perfect. But it is better then what we currently have (even the 2004-2006 Chase is better what we currently have). But my idea is already terrible. Why? Because an all-knowing NASCAR fan said so. If my idea is terrible then so is any championship system that any other fan comes up with. Not a bitter Betty just applying the logic too the opposite side.

So what means more; winning or consistency? Far as i see it, win or get out of the way. Mileage will vary heavily.

Golfs problems: Self-inflected or otherwise

Golf is a game that has been around for centuries. It has gone from guys using wooden sticks and wearing knickers too hitting it 350 yards and wearing clothes that can be seen from space. However the growth hasn't been always good. Modern golf is now viewed by more people then 50 years ago and is more accessible too old and younger people. And is no longer viewed as a "rich pricks" sport. But problems have surfaced that in the opinion of this blogger needs too addressed.... and soon.

1. Pace of play: This is one is quite obvious. Most rounds now a days take longer then what TV time as allotted them. 5-6 hours too play a round is way too long. The PGA Tour even has a "pace of play" rule but 99% of the time do not enforce it. Peter Alias once said that it him and another player 2 and 1/2 hours too play 2 rounds of golf. Modern golf take 5-6 for 1 round. See a problem? Modern golf should take about 3 and 1/2 too 4 hours too complete a round. Golfers should only have 30 seconds too hit the ball. Any longer is a 1 stroke penalty, 2nd time is 2 strokes, 3rd time is 3 strokes and after that is immediate DQ from the tournament. Officials should follow every group (USGA and R&A have money) too enforce the 30 second shot rule. And they only have 3 strikes for the entire tournament. Exceptions can be made for on course rulings and such but 30 seconds is all they should have per shot. People now a days do not have the attention span too sit and watch golf for 5-6 hours.

2. Expense: Golf is expensive. Understatement of all time i know. A brand new set of golf costs about 3 too 5 thousand dollars. That most likely includes fitting and additional costs of adjustment. A lot of people CAN NOT afford 3 too 5 thousand dollar set of 14 clubs. I myself have shopped for clubs individually and i have found it cheaper too buy clubs separately. But most stores do not sell clubs individually for sell, just as a set. Even older sets of clubs are worth in the hundreds of dollars. A lot of people can not afford that. In fact some people have left golf because it has gotten so expensive, some do not even start golf because it is so expensive. I'm not even including green fees, driving range, golf balls, membership costs and other expenses. Golf itself has too become cheaper in order for people too play it. However i know of some courses have gone from "private" too "public" courses, which is a good thing.

3. Tiger Woods: Before you say anything yes, Tiger Woods has done much for the world of golf. From increased exposure too increase revenue. However the media (particularity the golf media) have this unhealthy obsession Tiger Woods hoping he can "be what he once was." That Tiger will never came back. When they cover Tiger more then the winner when he misses the cut or finishes in the back (nobodies land) it is wrong. He is not 50% of the golfer he used too be. Tiger will matter when he wins and i do not see that any time soon. The golf media needs too push and promote kids like Jason Day, Jordan Speith and Rory Mclroy. They are future of golf, Tiger is the very far present.

4. The anchored ban rule: Yeah, we will ban it because guys have won majors using this method. The USGA and R&A should have gotten ahead of the curve 30 years ago and didn't. Doesn't make the hole any bigger. This talk about "it isn't a stroke" lame, that somehow anchoring doesn't make it so. Deane Beman (former commish of the PGA Tour before Tim Finchum and a former player himself) said during interview on Golf Channel that "putting itself is form of anchoring." Far as i see it, putting shouldn't even me considered a "stroke" itself. The USGA has even gone as far too say that if you use a anchor putting method, you can not post a USGA handicap. Well isn't that a great way too make golf more appealing isn't it? Some people used the anchor method for medical reason. Fred Couples uses it because of his back, Tim Clark physically can not use the standard putter. What of that "yips" problem? Ask Adam Scott how that works, could have 2 Claret Jugs too go along with that Green Jacket he won in 2013. Missed putts of short distance, i guess the anchor method helped him didn't it? Still have too read the greens and put the ball in the hole. Who cares how you do it. This hurts the game.... not help it. Professionally, Amateur or just Casual.

5. Shorten the courses, make them easier: 7500 yards. That is how long Chambers Bay was at this years (2015) US Open. Professional Golfers hit the ball miles now a days, much longer then the casual golfer can. Casual golfers should NOT be playing courses above 7000 yards. Just talking about those courses those host PGA events and host casual golfers and those ones who have increases their distance over the years that are public.

6. Lessen technology: Golf tech. has come a long way since the days of Harry Vardon, from wooden clubs and forged irons. Now modern clubs are made and built with advanced materials for increased control, distance and escapes from bad lies. This is one of the few times i'll agree with traditional golf people, however there are ways of mixing traditional methods with modern tech. I'm not saying do away with tech completely but i think it time too find out who benefits from tech. and who doesn't. I know the PGA Tour, USGA and R&A limit what is used in clubs and balls but i think those rules need too be stricter.

7. Changing 'par': The USGA in recent history in their infinite wisdom of changing how  many strokes a course is. Say Pebble Beach is normally Par 72, well the USGA 'could' change it too Par 70. Why? Well i do not know... ask them. If it is too make it more "difficult" is lame. Thicker rough? Deeper bunkers? Greens like Teflon? No lets just change Par. Par 4s are Par 5s and Par 5s are Par 4s. Set up the course and leave it ALONE.

8. Fans calling in penalties: This irritates me too end. A golfer breaks the rule that is buried so far down in the rule book but only a fan would know. Ends up costing someone a shot at finishing a tournament. Golfers penalizing themselves i'm fine with. Golfers have more honor for the rules then some other sport people do. It isn't the fans job too do it. Like i said before, the USGA and R&A can hire officials too follow every group and enforce the rules. It isn't the fans job, it the governing bodies job too do so.

This is just the surface but golf has a future. But these problems will hurt golfs future. These problems are easy too fix, but i do not see things changing quickly. Governing bodies have their priorities in the wrong places.