A trip back in time...

[mandretti39]

This is a thread about two former drivers in Champ Car who will be teammates next year in NASCAR. I am bringing these guys up as one of them won a championship this year in the IRL and they also had their own battle for the title in 1999. I am speaking of Dario Franchitti and Juan Pablo Montoya.

Why would I bring this up, you're wondering? I feel as though Dario was (not quite sure how to put this) "screwed" out of the title. Follow me on this. The rules state that if two drivers tied for the title, the one with the most wins gets the title. I don't like that, especially when Juan Pablo needed 7 wins to rack up 212 points versus Dario's 3 wins.

I feel the championship (if there is a tie) should be based on consistency. After checking out the results for that season, this is what I came up with:

Juan Pablo ended up with an average finishing position of 8th, while Dario wound up with 7.65. I know there's not much of a difference, but check this out: Juan Pablo finished in the top ten 13 times, 10 of those in the top five; while Dario finished 16 times in the top ten, with 12 of those in the top five. In terms of finishing worse than 10th, Juan Pablo did it 7 times, while Dario did it 4 times.

This just goes to show you that having a more consistent year and four less wins, should have given Dario the championship.

Any comments or arguments? I have nothing against Juan Pablo for winning the title, and I congratulate him for doing so, I just feel the rules need to be changed.

[chemhead1]

While a system for a championship focusing on consistency would possibly be more "fair" for the drivers, let's be honest: Fans don't pay to see a "points race".

That's the very reason why series are trying to make race wins even MORE valuable. Consistency was the reason that NASCAR now uses the Chase format. It's why some of the big international series are always considering more points to the winners.

I'll agree with you that a consistent driver makes a champion driver, but it's not what the fans want.

[JohnSSC]

No offense, then, Mandretti, but you must love the NASCAR points system then! Realizing we now have "The Chase" to decide the winner, NASCAR's points system made Terry Labonte "Champion" a few years back with Terry managing a grand total of ONE win out of 42 races. Now, nothing against Terry, but one win? What the heck kind of championship is that?

While consistency is a wonderful thing, the whole point to racing is to finish first. If it wasn't, then sayings like: "There's first place and there's no place" or "Second place is the first loser" would not be popular. Being "champion" presumes that you are better than everyone else, not that you were consistently above-average.

Nothing unfair at all about using number of races won as a tie-breaker.

[Knowlesy]

Dario was "screwed" out of the title?

Motorsport, first and foremost, is about winning. JPM did this far more often than Dario and also lost a nailed on victory at Road America late on, having held the lead most of the day fighting a knackered gearbox. And other points were lost thanks to Helio spazzing out at, I think, Toronto for example. There were of course the two late season errors at Surfers and Houston, the second one being somewhat freakish.

Add to this that it was his rookie season, he took six poles to Dario's two and drove in a rather more exciting manner then I don't think there can be any doubt who was the deserved champion. And I don't think Dario would argue otherwise either.

It was a great battle though. Two differing attitudes produced almost the same outcome. The carefree, daredevil attitude vs. the points harvester. What a year, what a series!

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by chemhead1

I'll agree with you that a consistent driver makes a champion driver, but it's not what the fans want.

What the "fans" want is a close battle that goes right to the wire. For this reason, wins aren't rewarded enough! We are given points systems that keep things close, feasibly you could win a title with no wins. Ridiculous!

It's the same in F1. You could win a title by simply being consistent. Admirable in a way, but wins should be rewarded more heavily in most series IMO.

[BootsOntheSide]

In ChampCar in 1999 you got 20 points for a win versus 16 for coming second. Even allowing for the bonus points, you could dominate 3/4 of the races and still not be champion. And now they've gone to a system putting even less reward on the winners. The same thing's happened to F1 and other FIA series as well, and it's ridiculous. The whole point of any competition is to win, not collect adequate results.

Where have I heard about a rookie making 2 crucial late-season mistakes before?

[luke]

I thought 1999 was a great year, perhaps CART was in its prime in 1998-2000? anyway Montoya vs Franchitti... I don't remember the season that well but I have seen races over the past year from the year of which Montoya and Franchitti won so most. All I can say is that the guy who won the most races, and by quite some difference got the title he deserved. He may not have been consistent but in years past Dario has been equaly as strong as he was in 1999 stats wise. I can see where you are coming from Mandretti definately but I personally think the most wins is a good way to see who to give the title to if there is a points draw.