Making Racing Fun
Auto racing isn't all that much appreciated by most people. Many can't even agree whether or not auto racing is really a "sport".
In an effort to make racing more interesting some series have tried over the years to tweak their rules and so on to increase competition. It's a simple issue; dominance is great yet terrible.
Sports fans love the stories of teams that have dominated in their profession. The greatest legends are teams that have faced all comers, beaten them all, and amassed record-setting win streaks. The Dolphins' undefeated NFL season, the thirty something game winning streak in the NBA. Even the "hated" Yankees, who are actually among the most popular sports teams on the planet, are hated and loved because they are the winner of the most championships of any franchise in history.
The oxymoron twist, however, is that we admire this greatness, this brush with utter perfection and dominance, from afar. Fans tend to hate it as it is occurring. That's because dominance is dull.
Take the case of a perfect game in baseball. When fans watch baseball, the most excitement comes from big hits, the towering flies that leave the park, the clutch stolen base, the hot shot down the line for a double, the double going for a triple. Most perfect games, most no-hitters, are merely pitching duels. Hitters go up there and they make little if any contact with the ball. Sometimes there will be the amazing catches, the memorable displays of glove play to rob hits. But in the aggregate fans don't much like pitching duels beyond their opportunity to touch legendary status. Evidence enough is that if that no-hitter instead had just one hit, it ceases to be considered history-making and fans likely won't remember much about it.
Both Nascar and F1 have found themselves in strange company. Over the past several seasons, they each have one team that has more or less dominated the sport, going on a tear and setting or breaking records not just for the pace of winning races, but dominating in championships. The dominance of Sebastian Vettel in F1 in particular has made it such that it is almost an aberration at this point if Vettel doesn't win a race, let alone the championship.
In Nascar, to head this off, the governing body created the "Chase". It used to be a straightforward system; points awarded each race, team with most points after the last race wins the championship. The Chase instituted a sort of playoff reset. Ten races to go, the top twelve drivers (originally top ten, and now something like 15) race with reset points towards the end of the season. The idea is that this helps insure the championship is still competitive all the way until the last race.
Suffice to say, with their changing the chase format almost every single year, Nascar has not seen the results they hoped for. This year they now plan on a knockout style where after every three races or so, three or four drivers are eliminated from the Chase.
F1 is planning something a little different. They will be awarding double the points in the last race of the series, essentially making it much easier that a driver could leapfrog the championship leader due to the combination of a not-so-great finish by the championship leader, and a very good one by the third place driver.
This strikes some fans of auto racing as "unnatural". It's thought racing should be rather straightforward. You race, you win. The folks who win most, who are most consistently good, get the championship at the ends of the year.
But playoffs aren't a bad idea for racing. You can have a perfect season in the NFL, but if you don't win the Super Bowl, or let alone one of the earlier rounds of the playoffs, it doesn't matter. The team who wins the most MLB games on the season isn't guaranteed to make it past the first round of the playoffs either, let alone a championship. With the NCAA rules, winning alone doesn't even guarantee you'll get a good, let alone decent, seeding. All that being the leader in these two examples matters is that you get a shot to play some of the other leaders.
I don't much mind that they're trying to change things up a little. It's always been my contention that anything created by human hands can be changed, regardless of the tradition assigned to it. Racing is not that old. Who is to say what system and rules are the right ones. Times change, and sometimes things must change to fit the times. I will observe these new rules in my two favored racing series, evaluate their effect, and render my judgment afterwards. I hope other fans will do the same.
In an effort to make racing more interesting some series have tried over the years to tweak their rules and so on to increase competition. It's a simple issue; dominance is great yet terrible.
Sports fans love the stories of teams that have dominated in their profession. The greatest legends are teams that have faced all comers, beaten them all, and amassed record-setting win streaks. The Dolphins' undefeated NFL season, the thirty something game winning streak in the NBA. Even the "hated" Yankees, who are actually among the most popular sports teams on the planet, are hated and loved because they are the winner of the most championships of any franchise in history.
The oxymoron twist, however, is that we admire this greatness, this brush with utter perfection and dominance, from afar. Fans tend to hate it as it is occurring. That's because dominance is dull.
Take the case of a perfect game in baseball. When fans watch baseball, the most excitement comes from big hits, the towering flies that leave the park, the clutch stolen base, the hot shot down the line for a double, the double going for a triple. Most perfect games, most no-hitters, are merely pitching duels. Hitters go up there and they make little if any contact with the ball. Sometimes there will be the amazing catches, the memorable displays of glove play to rob hits. But in the aggregate fans don't much like pitching duels beyond their opportunity to touch legendary status. Evidence enough is that if that no-hitter instead had just one hit, it ceases to be considered history-making and fans likely won't remember much about it.
Both Nascar and F1 have found themselves in strange company. Over the past several seasons, they each have one team that has more or less dominated the sport, going on a tear and setting or breaking records not just for the pace of winning races, but dominating in championships. The dominance of Sebastian Vettel in F1 in particular has made it such that it is almost an aberration at this point if Vettel doesn't win a race, let alone the championship.
In Nascar, to head this off, the governing body created the "Chase". It used to be a straightforward system; points awarded each race, team with most points after the last race wins the championship. The Chase instituted a sort of playoff reset. Ten races to go, the top twelve drivers (originally top ten, and now something like 15) race with reset points towards the end of the season. The idea is that this helps insure the championship is still competitive all the way until the last race.
Suffice to say, with their changing the chase format almost every single year, Nascar has not seen the results they hoped for. This year they now plan on a knockout style where after every three races or so, three or four drivers are eliminated from the Chase.
F1 is planning something a little different. They will be awarding double the points in the last race of the series, essentially making it much easier that a driver could leapfrog the championship leader due to the combination of a not-so-great finish by the championship leader, and a very good one by the third place driver.
This strikes some fans of auto racing as "unnatural". It's thought racing should be rather straightforward. You race, you win. The folks who win most, who are most consistently good, get the championship at the ends of the year.
But playoffs aren't a bad idea for racing. You can have a perfect season in the NFL, but if you don't win the Super Bowl, or let alone one of the earlier rounds of the playoffs, it doesn't matter. The team who wins the most MLB games on the season isn't guaranteed to make it past the first round of the playoffs either, let alone a championship. With the NCAA rules, winning alone doesn't even guarantee you'll get a good, let alone decent, seeding. All that being the leader in these two examples matters is that you get a shot to play some of the other leaders.
I don't much mind that they're trying to change things up a little. It's always been my contention that anything created by human hands can be changed, regardless of the tradition assigned to it. Racing is not that old. Who is to say what system and rules are the right ones. Times change, and sometimes things must change to fit the times. I will observe these new rules in my two favored racing series, evaluate their effect, and render my judgment afterwards. I hope other fans will do the same.
Comments
Post a Comment