Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

Better track prep/no wings= problem solved

How about #1 pill draw run 1 lap and on down the line to the last pill draw of the evening. Reverse pill draw order for 2nd lap meaning #1 pill draw would run his 2nd lap as the last timt trialer of the night. Average out the 2 laps & determine the time trial results.

At the risk of drawing the wrath of all those from this forum opposed to any change in the Nationals , I would like to offer a suggestion for scoring at the Nationals.  It was common to hear people talk about the timing discrepancies between those who timed early and those who timed in late on Wednesday and Thursday of this year's nationals.   Here is data from this year's qualifying nights.  The average position of the first ten cars to time on Wednesay was 15.4.  The average position of the last ten cars to time on Wednesday was 33.8.  Seven of the last ten to time timed 31st or worse.  Of the top ten times, five of them came from the first ten to time trial.  Only Paul McMahan broke into the top ten from the last ten to time.  

On Thursday, Kevin Ingle was the first to time in and timed 55th out of 57.  The next ten to time, however, averaged to time in at 14.8.  The last ten to time averaged to finish at 41.3.  The best time of the last ten to time was turned in by Billy Alley who timed in 27th.  

IF you look at the top ten times from each night (a total of 20 drivers), only Paul McMahan came from the last ten cars to time.  Only one!!  Eight of the 20 came from the first ten cars to time.  

I am not proposing to eliminate time trials.  What I am proposing is softening up their impact.  Currently, there is a two point gap between each position.  Using the averages above, the final ten to time on Wednesday were giving up 18.4 spots (33.8-15.4) which equals almost 37 points to those in the top ten just because of the luck of the draw.   On Thursday, the gap was wider, as the last ten to time, gave up an average of 26.5 spots or 53 points to their competitors who had the good fortune to draw one of those first ten timing spots.  A deficit that large is pretty hard to overcome and is due in large part to the luck of the draw.  

A possibile solution?  Decrease the point differential between each time trial spot to one point instead of the traditional two points.  I would propose that the three point differential in the heats and the two point differential in the features remain.  This would soften the impact of being on the wrong end of the draw, and put more emphasis on the heat races and features.  Best of all, this wouldn't change the format of the Nationals at all, most fans wouldn't even notice there was a change.

This would increase the fairness of the event which I think most would agree is important at any sporting event.

Now I am interested to see how many in the forum tear this one apart.

The nationals are still about perfection. The draw will always suck, but the points will always reflect the same.

I wonder... would we be looking for changes to the system if the same guy didn't win nine out of the last ten races?

Better track prep/no wings= problem solved

Just based on what i've been told (I haven't researched this)...but are the time trials worth the same amount of points as say the A Main?......it that's true, it dosen't seem right....I'd suggest 25% of you night's points based on time trials, 25% based on heat race finish, and the final 50% based on your feature finish...that puts the most emphasis on RACING not the luck of the draw and/or track conditions....a deeper invert (6) and more heat race laps (10) would also help  (inverting 4 and taking 3 in an 8 lap heat race w/ 10 or more cars-ala the Capitani, just didn't seem right, but it DID the the HITTERS they wanted in the A Main).........comments?.................SC

Just based on what i've been told (I haven't researched this)...but are the time trials worth the same amount of points as say the A Main?......it that's true, it dosen't seem right....I'd suggest 25% of you night's points based on time trials, 25% based on heat race finish, and the final 50% based on your feature finish...that puts the most emphasis on RACING not the luck of the draw and/or track conditions....a deeper invert (6) and more heat race laps (10) would also help  (inverting 4 and taking 3 in an 8 lap heat race w/ 10 or more cars-ala the Capitani, just didn't seem right, but it DID the the HITTERS they wanted in the A Main).........comments?.................SC

The Time Trials are worth the same points as the "A" Main because the Heats are inverted a full 8 spots.  With a full 8 spot invert you are really penalizing the fastest cars a lot in the heats.  Therefore it sort of evens things out and makes for a great deal of pressure to do good each time you hit the track....  

The Time Trials are worth the same points as the "A" Main because the Heats are inverted a full 8 spots.  With a full 8 spot invert you are really penalizing the fastest cars a lot in the heats.  Therefore it sort of evens things out and makes for a great deal of pressure to do good each time you hit the track....  

Thanks to MadManMadsen for taking the time to check to see how things would have been different if my proposal was the format.  First off, I am one of the few that isn't upset that Schatz won again this year.  While I am not a big Schatz fan, I am in awe of the streak he has going over the past ten years.  Over the last two years, I have found myself pulling for him hoping that he has a chance someday to match or pass Steve Kinser's 11 wins, a feat I thought would never be replicated.  

Thus, my concern with time trials has nothing to do with Donny Schatz.  I was most concerned for guys like Shane Stewart, who in my mind was the one guy that could seriously challenge Donny this year, but ended up timing so late, he timed 18th which set him back about five rows Saturday night.  According to MadMan, Stewart would have started two rows ahead of where he did, that might have made a difference, maybe not. 

The current time trial format also hurt some pretty established teams:  Jac Haudenschild, Craig Dollansky, Brady Bacon, Kevin Swindell, and Mark Dobmeier timed so poorly, they couldn't even make the eight car inversion.  They had to start their heats from the back row.  All five of them were among the last twenty cars to time.  Luckily for some of them, they had Friday's second chance night, but sadly, Kevin Swindell did not.

The one point proposal would have benefitted Terry McCarl by three spots, which seems good to me seeing as he won Thursday's Saturday feature.  

According to MadMan, Justin Henderson and Wayne Johnson would have made the A outright under the one point proposal.  Seeing as they finished fifth and sixth in Thursday's A feature, they probably deserved to be locked into Saturday's A main. Under my proposal, Schatz would still have been on the front row, so my proposal wouldn't have affected his chances at all.  He and Kerry Madsen would have just flipped sides.  

One last thought:  One comment said that the cream rose to the top on Thursday night anyway as that commentator mentioned that he predicted 14 of the 16 top cars.  The catch is that most of these guys qualified poorly and started their heats in the front row or two.  This helped them immensely on Thursday night, but when the points were tallied, many of them had point totals way to low to be locked into the top 16 for Saturday.  Thus their poor times helped them on Thursday, but hurt them on Saturday when it counts the most.  Two examples:  Dusty Zomer (51st to time), timed 33rd and started his heat in row two, Steve Kinser (46th time) timed 40th, and started on the pole of the fifth heat.  Neither had enough points to lock into the top 26 after Thursday.

At the risk of drawing the wrath of all those from this forum opposed to any change in the Nationals , I would like to offer a suggestion for scoring at the Nationals.  It was common to hear people talk about the timing discrepancies between those who timed early and those who timed in late on Wednesday and Thursday of this year's nationals.   Here is data from this year's qualifying nights.  The average position of the first ten cars to time on Wednesay was 15.4.  The average position of the last ten cars to time on Wednesday was 33.8.  Seven of the last ten to time timed 31st or worse.  Of the top ten times, five of them came from the first ten to time trial.  Only Paul McMahan broke into the top ten from the last ten to time.  

On Thursday, Kevin Ingle was the first to time in and timed 55th out of 57.  The next ten to time, however, averaged to time in at 14.8.  The last ten to time averaged to finish at 41.3.  The best time of the last ten to time was turned in by Billy Alley who timed in 27th.  

IF you look at the top ten times from each night (a total of 20 drivers), only Paul McMahan came from the last ten cars to time.  Only one!!  Eight of the 20 came from the first ten cars to time.  

I am not proposing to eliminate time trials.  What I am proposing is softening up their impact.  Currently, there is a two point gap between each position.  Using the averages above, the final ten to time on Wednesday were giving up 18.4 spots (33.8-15.4) which equals almost 37 points to those in the top ten just because of the luck of the draw.   On Thursday, the gap was wider, as the last ten to time, gave up an average of 26.5 spots or 53 points to their competitors who had the good fortune to draw one of those first ten timing spots.  A deficit that large is pretty hard to overcome and is due in large part to the luck of the draw.  

A possibile solution?  Decrease the point differential between each time trial spot to one point instead of the traditional two points.  I would propose that the three point differential in the heats and the two point differential in the features remain.  This would soften the impact of being on the wrong end of the draw, and put more emphasis on the heat races and features.  Best of all, this wouldn't change the format of the Nationals at all, most fans wouldn't even notice there was a change.

This would increase the fairness of the event which I think most would agree is important at any sporting event.

Now I am interested to see how many in the forum tear this one apart.