Waid’s World: There May Be a Better Title Format – But Not Perfect

Certainly, one of the most important decisions NASCAR will make (if it hasn’t already made it) will be the system it will use to determine its NASCAR Cup Series champion.

In recent weeks, the sanctioning body has indicated its apparent willingness to abandon a playoff format, which it adopted and modified after the 2003 season.

That would indeed please many of NASCAR’s long-established fans and critics, who have pleaded for a season-long championship devoid of playoff gimmickry.

A championship based on season-long performance and the points accrued therein is the true measure of a champion. He’s not crowned by a method that stresses victory over consistency and haphazardly awards points through such trickery as stage racing.

Frankly, I understand the pros and cons of either system.

The season-long campaign is indeed free of unnecessary frills, but it is one in which a champion can be determined before a season is over.

Among other things, a playoff was designed to assure a championship would not be decided until the final race of the year and, at the same time, maintain TV interest as a season moves into competition with college and pro football.

I’ll say right away, NASCAR is never going to be much competition against the TV giant, football.

I learned to live with a playoff, although I never got used to stage racing. But if it’s back to a season-long system, rest assured, I can live with that, too.

But unless NASCAR has some hidden scheme, it won’t be perfect. There has been ample evidence of that.

NASCAR’s point system has changed dramatically and repeatedly since its birth. At one time, points actually used decimal points and were harder to figure out than field equations.

The late Bob Latford, a long-time NASCAR public relations official and statistician, is credited with creating the system used from the mid-1970s until 2003.

While victory was indeed rewarded, it was not overloaded. Consistency of performance was also recognized. That meant a driver who won a race and then couldn’t crack the top 15 in the next three events was not superior to one who scored in the top five or 10 during the same period.

It seemed to work. Most of the time, a title wasn’t awarded until the final race of the season – although there were several occasions in which a driver needed only to start his engine to be champ.

And there were seasons in which the final race was set to be a dramatic, highly anticipated event.

Richard Petty’s 11-point win over Darrell Waltrip in 1979 comes to mind, as does Alan Kulwicki’s 10-point triumph at EchoPark Speedway in Atlanta over Bill Elliott in 1992, considered by many as “NASCAR’s Greatest Race.”

Of course, there is the other end of the spectrum, as in 1986, when Dale Earnhardt had the title sewn up by Atlanta, the next-to-last race of the season. He could have gone hunting rather than going to Riverside, as he won the title by 288 points over Waltrip.

Perhaps one of the most unusual finishes in the season-long era came when a championship was decided not so much by the outcome of the final race, but by a NASCAR ruling made months earlier. At least, that is what many historians will tell you.

In an oft-told story, Mark Martin won at Richmond Raceway in February of 1990, but his Roush Racing team was fined $40,000 and stripped of 46 points for having illegal engine spacers. The victory stood. NASCAR said the 46-point penalty was enforced because that was the number of points Martin would have received had he finished last on the lead lap.

Throughout the season, Martin waged a battle with Earnhardt for the points lead. It all boiled down to Phoenix Raceway on Nov. 4, the event before the finale at Atlanta.

Earnhardt was 45 points behind Martin when the race started and emerged six points ahead after dominating the race (he got 10 bonus points for most laps led), while Martin struggled with a late tire change and loss of position. He finished 10th.

Consequently, the situation was reversed. Earnhardt came into Atlanta with a mere six-point lead, the smallest since Petty’s two-point margin heading into Ontario in 1979. Atlanta was the season’s most anticipated race. Two drivers, separated by a minuscule number of points, were going to slug it out.

However, many didn’t forget that the situation would not be nearly as dramatic if Martin hadn’t been penalized 46 points at Richmond. A 40-point lead would have been all but unbeatable.

Roush had long been in the Ford Motor Co. stable, and the manufacturer was eager to win the championship. So much so that it added a Robert Yates Racing Ford to the fleet it tested the week before the race. Despite having four Roush vehicles at his disposal, Martin’s team opted to compete in the Yates Thunderbird. The reasoning was that it was the car best suited to beat Earnhardt.

“Doesn’t matter,” said Kirk Shelmerdine, Earnhardt’s crew chief. “They’ll still be racing a Ford.”

Morgan Shepherd won the Atlanta Journal 500 while Earnhardt finished fourth and Martin ninth. As a result, Earnhardt won his fourth career title by 26 points.

It was duly noted, by fans and media alike, that Martin would have won the title for the first time in his career by 20 points if not for the penalty.

Martin was stoic afterward, saying that all races matter and that included all circumstances therein. Earnhardt said the Roush team cheated, got caught and that was that.

Perhaps Waltrip said it best: “What we had was a battle between two of the season’s top drivers racing two of the season’s top cars. You can’t ask for much more than that.”

Indeed, what happened in 1990 that affected the championship outcome could have occurred in either a season-long format, which it did, or even a playoff system.

But that doesn’t matter. What it indicates is that no matter the championship format, something unique can – and will – happen. After all, nothing is perfect.