New Point System vs.The Old One

[Omega99]

Ok, four races into the season and there's already some criticism of the new point system floating around... well, there was some criticism from day one, come to think of it. I thought I'd figure out what the championship standings would look like under the old point structure. The driver's current rankings under the new system appear in brackets after their name.

1. Sebastien Bourdais (3) 60
2. Bruno Junqueira (1) 58
3. Patrick Carpentier (2) 52
4. Paul Tracy (4) 41
5. Ryan Hunter-Reay (5) 34
6. Mario Dominguez (7) 29
7. Justin Wilson (6) 28
8. Alex Tagliani (8) 21
9. AJ Allmendinger (9) 19
T10. Michel Jourdain Jr. (T10) 18
T10. Jimmy Vasser (T10) 18
12. Mario Haberfeld (12) 11
T13. Roberto Gonzales (T13) 8
T13. Oriol Servia (T13) 8
15. Rodolfo Lavin (15) 7
16. Nelson Phillipe (16) 3
17. Alex Sperafico (17) 0
18. Tarso Marques (19) 0
19. Gaston Mazzacane (18) 0

The standings are identical from 8th down. It's worth noting that even drivers that are tied with each other under one system were tied under the other, though mostly by chance. And there was only a slight shuffling in the top of the order, but it did change.

As many have pointed out, the new system rewards consistency more, and the old one rewards winning more. So, which do you prefer?

[Flatspot]

I think winning should play the greater role. After all second place is just the first loser.

[macdaddy]

It's hard to say. The top-two in the championship right now have yet to make it to Victory Circle.

This is something that I posted just the other day, in another thread...

DRIVER POINTS WINS

1 Junqueira - 105 - 0
2 Carpentier - 99 - 0
3 Bourdais - 98 - 2
4 Tracy - 79 - 1
5 Hunter-Raey - 75 - 1

Omega99 makes note that, under the old system, twice-victor Bourdais would be leading the standings. This would seem apt, but then again, I also believe that consistency is also important. That's why I can't make up my mind on how to vote for the poll!

[gomick]

happy with the new points system - think consistency will always win out over most wins when it comes to championship winners - except in formula 1

[f1manoz]

I'm not fussed at either one.

[Kicking-back]

Old one was better - the new one is ridiculous with all its silly bonus points

[mitchie]

Its a bit early for mind to be comparing the two point scores. Wait until the end of the season, and then see how it played for or against various drivers.

There is a fine line between rewarding consistency over the course of a season, and lowering the importance of wins (in the points score). I think if anything though, Champ Car have slightly moved into the consistency scheme of things, given the increased cost of a DNF.

[Snrub]

Historically I think the old system was appropriate for the kind of racing CART had. Last year the racing was a bit different so perhaps it wasn't as just as it had been. Last year it was clear that victory needed to be rewarded more strongly.

For the new system I think that someone who drove well and perhaps led, but DNFed did a better job than someone who completed some laps and finished down the order. What the new system does is reward people who don't finish that strongly because it does not have as great a percent difference between positions as in the past. As I said, I think that the old system wasn't necessarly just for the kind of racing we had in 2003. We now have similar racing and we've moved in the wrong direction with the points scoring.

While the standings may not be radically different, we can see the potential for the unjust due to the points differences. For instance after a race 6th place is rewarded the way 4th use to be.

[Kicking-back]

With only 18 cars starting, using the F1 system would better reflect the results.

It's 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

[jjspierx]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
Old one was better - the new one is ridiculous with all its silly bonus points

I agree the old points system was better, although I actually like the bonus points part of the new system, and don't find them silly at all. I think more emphasis should be put on winning races, because thats what racing is all about. Consistency is important too, but even under the old system a driver could easily win the championship on consistency. Paul Tracy tried to let Junquiera win on consistency several times last year, but Junqueira kept messing it up.

[gomick]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
With only 18 cars starting, using the F1 system would better reflect the results.

It's 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

good idea Kicking-back

[N I Tram]

The current system doesn't place enough significance on winning races. Seb has been the better Newman-Haas driver this year, and he shoudl be leading the way - he's been excessivlery punished for Milwaukee in essence.

[Kicking-back]

Champ Car with F1 points:


Junqueira 27
Bourdais 26
Carpentier 23
Tracy 18
Hunter-Reay 13
Dominguez 11
Wilson 10
Tagliani 7
Almendinger 7
Jourdain 6
Vasser 6
Servia 2

That fairly reflects the results of the series so far, I reckon.

[Snrub]

Never thought I'd say it, but I'll agree with you guys that the F1 points system would probably work well for CART right now.

[Liz]

The new system is too much like NA$CAR -- how long til you get points for everything from your haircut to just showing up in a car that can run (i.e. lap money)?

I like the F1 system too. Giving everyone points cheapens the competition.

[Kicking-back]

Agree, Liz.

And I don't like this business of points in qualifying - it's just meant to set the starting order.

The points should reward the race result.

[Jordi]

I liked the old system, that is the 20-16-14... with one point per laps led and one per pole, not as had been used lately with the extra point on Friday. Maybe I have to agree that now F1's system would be maybe the best one, but for the sake of being Champ Car I think they should have kept the 20-16-14... scoring system, maybe reducing it to 10 cars scoring, though.

[x_dt]

Perhaps a system with points to 10th place would be a good bet - something like 20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1 + bonus points for pole, most laps led and (possibly) fastest lap.

A system which gives the second place finisher approx 87% of the points of the winner (exc bonus points) just doesn't reward winning sufficiently. At the very least they should take away the 'hard charger' bonus point which in a race of high attrition will most likely go to a tail-ender who's lasted the distance rather than someone who deserves an extra point. And why should it matter whether someone retires on lap 1 or at half distance?

[BootsOntheSide]

The hard charger point is pretty silly, as it makes no distinction between overtaking cars, and staying around as others retire. I suspect Dale Coyne's guys will have frequently got it last year.

I think they should've kept the old system, for the sake of tradition. The idea x_dt sugegsted sounds pretty good - and that's nearer to the old system.