|
|
Topic: Final points wednesday (unofficial)
|
Email this topic to a friend |
Subscribe to this Topic
| Report this Topic to Moderator
|
Page 1 of 1 of 16 replies
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
02:37:05 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
12/10/2004
|
Posts:
|
41
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
03:41:52 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
12/01/2004
|
Posts:
|
229
|
|
|
I still think there's too much emphasis on qualifying. JMO
Why is Austin McCarl the only rookie listed? I know Cale Conley is a rookie also.
I couldn't find a list of rookies for this year on the Knoxville site. Does anyone know where they are listed if anywhere?
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
03:58:10 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
02/11/2007
|
Posts:
|
1163
|
|
|
This message was edited on
August 13, 2009 at
03:58:32 AM by Rogue-9
Knoxville changed the results putting Dollansky up to 13th, so he actually has 442 points. McMahon and Allard thus each lose 2 points putting them back to 446.
|
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
03:59:42 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
07/23/2005
|
Posts:
|
75
|
|
|
How can you say there is TOO much emphasis on Qualifying when you look at a night like tonight where the track gets soaked right before race time and then they force it in. You qualify well, get hit by the invert, and no one can pass on the narrow track. Qualifying is EVERYTHING. It sets you up for where you will run the rest of the night.
----------------------------------
There's always a time and a place.
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
04:00:40 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
02/11/2007
|
Posts:
|
1163
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: Kamshaft on August 13 2009 at 03:41:52 AM
I still think there's too much emphasis on qualifying. JMO
Why is Austin McCarl the only rookie listed? I know Cale Conley is a rookie also.
I couldn't find a list of rookies for this year on the Knoxville site. Does anyone know where they are listed if anywhere?
|
Qualifying good actually sscrewed a lot of people tonight. I kind of think Knoxville made a mistake running this tonight.
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
04:10:28 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
11/25/2005
|
Posts:
|
558
|
|
|
That was not the kind of track you want for qualifying night of the Nats.-There are some big names that can already forget about winning this one,they will start too far back.
|
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
07:52:22 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
10/21/2005
|
Posts:
|
526
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: Kamshaft on August 13 2009 at 03:41:52 AM
I still think there's too much emphasis on qualifying. JMO
Why is Austin McCarl the only rookie listed? I know Cale Conley is a rookie also.
I couldn't find a list of rookies for this year on the Knoxville site. Does anyone know where they are listed if anywhere?
|
I'm assuming that this list of points was copied and pasted from Knoxville's website (I haven't looked to verify that). If so, the "(R)" that you see for Austin McCarl means he is a rookie for the season at Knoxville. They don't list rookies for the Nationals like that. Since Conley doesn't run the full year/most of the year at Knoxville, he doesn't get an "(R)" beside his name.
I'm not sure if I've ever seen a complete list of Nationals rookies for any year. I think I usually have to read a press release or two to find the Nationals Rookie of the Year after the race.
Signature here.
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
08:05:24 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
12/01/2004
|
Posts:
|
29
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: Kamshaft on August 13 2009 at 03:41:52 AM
I still think there's too much emphasis on qualifying. JMO
Why is Austin McCarl the only rookie listed? I know Cale Conley is a rookie also.
I couldn't find a list of rookies for this year on the Knoxville site. Does anyone know where they are listed if anywhere?
|
I agree, I've thought for a long time that how you finish in the A main should be the biggest chunk of points. It should be about racing, not qualifying. The qualifying points should be cut to a 100 point scale instead of 200. Then you could add 2 points per car passed in the features or something like that. That, in my opinion, would be a better way of doing the points.
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
08:16:29 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
11/30/2004
|
Posts:
|
1461
|
|
|
Has anyone noticed that they are only inverting 8 in the heats this year instead of the usual 10? Between that and scheduled fuel stops, this is not a good trend.
|
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
09:29:54 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
12/01/2004
|
Posts:
|
29
|
|
|
Reply to:
I just don't think they could afford to try and sandbag with 44 cars separated by 0.8 seconds like last night. The 100 points is still very valueable but as a racer myself, I've never felt that being out on a race track by yourself turning laps on a better racetrack than what some other driver dealt with is really a fair judgement of who the best driver is. I think points should be detemined on who races best, who can pass cars, who can stay out of trouble, etc. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
09:44:36 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
08/23/2007
|
Posts:
|
542
|
|
|
This message was edited on
August 13, 2009 at
09:46:43 AM by kmart
Reply to:
I totally agree with this point system and it has been this way for a long long time. I think that every year that some hot dogs dont get in and thats what make the nationals so intresting to me. They had the same deal last week for the 360`s and that c feature line up was a great bunch of cars. It creates drama and thats what I like about the nationals, I go to any other race and the time trials are ok but at the nationals I AM paying very close attention. Then when the nights races are over I cant wait to see the point totals for the night. You earn what you get at the nationals.
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
09:45:00 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
12/05/2008
|
Posts:
|
131
|
|
|
IMO, if they are going to stress qualifying as an importance they need to reward the drivers that qualify well. The invert is WAY too large. Quick timers have to start 8th in their heat and need to get to 4th?? There's no reward in that. Especially on a racing surface such as last night that only saw a couple guys that qualified in the top 15 make it to 4th (or better). Starting 6th would be more reasonable (like a normal outlaw show). I overall like the Nat'ls system, but I think the invert doesn't need to be so extreme. Why reward someone like A. McCarl who qualified 38th/50 and put him on the pole to allow him to transfer to the A main? Doesn't make sense...
|
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
10:04:40 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
08/23/2007
|
Posts:
|
542
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: thirteen on August 13 2009 at 09:45:00 AM
IMO, if they are going to stress qualifying as an importance they need to reward the drivers that qualify well. The invert is WAY too large. Quick timers have to start 8th in their heat and need to get to 4th?? There's no reward in that. Especially on a racing surface such as last night that only saw a couple guys that qualified in the top 15 make it to 4th (or better). Starting 6th would be more reasonable (like a normal outlaw show). I overall like the Nat'ls system, but I think the invert doesn't need to be so extreme. Why reward someone like A. McCarl who qualified 38th/50 and put him on the pole to allow him to transfer to the A main? Doesn't make sense...
|
Because it gives the little guy who dont have the brand new $50,000 motor a chance to make some money AND make the A main on saturday night.
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
10:36:07 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
09/14/2006
|
Posts:
|
487
|
|
|
Points system is perfect...invert should be 10. That was the system for how many years and the cream always rose to the top and the fans got the best racing of the year on Wednesday and Thursday nights.
So now some want to make it even easier for the best to dominate the Nationals? And give even fewer cars a chance at a good week. Might as well make them another Kings Royal then. And the car count will also be like the Kings Royal.
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
10:59:00 AM
|
|
Joined:
|
12/01/2004
|
Posts:
|
29
|
|
|
This message was edited on
August 13, 2009 at
10:59:55 AM by racinsooner
Reply to:
I don't think anyone is whining about anything, a couple of people made some suggestions based on how sprint car racing has changes since this format was first used, that's it, that's what message boards are for right, discussion about topics. Geez, you gotta love message board nazi's who when they don't agree with what someone is saying immediately go to grade school smack. FYI, I have "passed through the gates of the Marion County Fairgrounds" a few times although I don't see what difference that makes.
In reality, the best option for the fan is too not have to sit through watching qualifying at all. The way the chili bowl and the ASCS sprint bandits do it with a heat race and then an inverted "A" qualifier based on points is the best for fan entertainment by far and again, you have to RACE, which is what its all about anyway.
|
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
12:14:45 PM
|
|
Joined:
|
07/27/2009
|
Posts:
|
22
|
|
|
Everybody can gripe about the narrow, fast track and how nobody can pass an dhow it screws good qualifiers. Meyers, Lasoski and others couldn't pass anybody, ect. Well, Dollansky would have been third in points last night before he crashed and...surprise, surprise...look who leads points right now. Seems Schatz made it work for him.
The point system is fine. The invert needs to be left at ten...or better yet...just go to eight car heats and invert everybody.
I agree totally with Jamie.
|
|
|
August 13, 2009 at
12:23:46 PM
|
|
Joined:
|
12/04/2004
|
Posts:
|
1023
|
|
|
This message was edited on
August 13, 2009 at
12:24:57 PM by Raceway Video
Reply to:
I would be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people reading this post have at one point in time "passed through the gates of the Marion County Fairgrounds"
Jeff Kristensen
|
|