Early thoughts on NASCAR's potential new Chase

One of these cars would likely make the Chase under any format. The other... maybe not so much.

Word is that NASCAR is contemplating some major changes to its Chase format, with the major points being as follows:

• The Chase expands from 12 to 16 drivers, with the field being the top 16 full-time drivers who won in the first 26 races. If fewer than 16 drivers win (last year, 12 did, including part-timer Brian Vickers and Tony Stewart, who would have missed the Chase due to injury), it would be race winners and then the drivers highest in points.
• Eliminations of the lowest four Chase drivers after the third, sixth and ninth races.
• A winner-take-all final race between the top four drivers at Homestead, with the driver who scored the most points being the champion.

Unlike the majority of the commenters on the story linked above, as first glimpse I think I like the idea. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about any reseeding that leaves drivers with the same number of points, particularly for the finale, but that's what you'd need to have for a true playoff system, and always having four contenders for the title at Homestead should be exciting. 

(By the way, angry commenter folks, the reason why the "stick-and-ball" sports have elimination-style playoffs that sometimes mean the best team over the course of a season doesn't win the championship is because they work and people like them. If you don't think so, what will millions of people be doing this Sunday, two Sundays after that and most of March?)

Anything that encourages harder racing is good -- Other than drivers not racing for the first half to three-quarters of the race, and complaining about those who do, my biggest complaint about NASCAR drivers is when they have a chance for a win, but don't go for it because they don't want to jeopardize a "good points day" by taking a risk. 

But a system that means winning a race means making the Chase, there's more incentive to take those risks. Then once the Chase starts, drivers will have to do whatever is necessary in order to make the cut every three races. In the words of the late Jim Valvano, it's "survive and advance."

Smaller teams (and Marcos Ambrose) should be thrilled -- David Ragan won at Talladega last year. Trevor Bayne won the Daytona 500 in 2011. Regan Smith won the Southern 500 the same year. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes teams outside the top operations score a win, but they're not consistent enough over 26 races to make the Chase, even with the wild cards for race winners in recent years.

But under this format, they would have made the Chase, except for Bayne, who like Vickers was a part-timer. Now, a surprise win likely lands a team in the Chase, which could also mean more sponsorship for the teams who can convince businesses that they can win with more resources. Maybe the Wood Brothers even try to get enough funding for a full season, although it likely wouldn't be with Bayne, since he runs Sprint Cup races on loan from Roush Fenway Racing.

And Ambrose, who is decent on oval tracks but a serious contender on the road courses, with two wins at Watkins Glen, now has at least two great chances to make the Chase.

By that same token ...

Daytona and Talladega just got that much bigger -- If a surprise win is going to happen -- think Bayne, Ragan and even Smith at Talladega before he was judged to be below the out-of-bounds line -- it's most likely at one of the restrictor-plate tracks. 

After all, these drivers all had top 10 finishes at Daytona or Talladega last year: Smith, Danica Patrick (who for all her other problems, is fast on plate tracks), Michael McDowell, J.J. Yeley, Ragan, David Gilliland, Scott Speed, Aric Almirola, Casey Mears, Jamie McMurray, Ricky Stenhouse Jr. and Paul Menard.

At Daytona and Talladega, if you can be in the top 10, you can win it.

Dale Earnhardt Jr. should perhaps be concerned -- Dale Jr. has had a nice career resurgence the last two years with the (unfortunately, departing) Steve Letarte as his crew chief ... two Chase berths, a lot of top 10s, more top-five finishes and fewer races where he and the car are out to lunch and he rides around in the back all day.

But he has only won once, at Michigan in 2012.

Imagine the nightmare scenario under a new Chase format: Ragan, McMurray and Patrick (because it would be fun to see how the people who hate her for reasons they refuse to admit would react) take the restrictor-plate races and Ambrose and Martin Truex Jr. or A.J. Allmendinger win on the road courses.

That's five races, and doesn't even account for a result like Vickers (now a full-timer) at New Hampshire last year. If the guys who normally win races -- Johnson, Kenseth, Stewart, etc. -- get their wins, all of a sudden there aren't a lot of races left and the number of winners starts to get really close to 16.

Even if all those things don't happen, I'm not sure anyone would want to take their chances on fewer than 16 drivers winning and being one of the tops in points among non-winners.

So it would behoove Dale Jr. to put the 88 in Victory Lane as soon as he can.

The problem is TV and money, not just TV

"The view a fan gets at home should not be better than that of the fan in the worst seat in the ballpark." -- Baseball commissioner Ford Frick (quote from "Monday Night Mayhem" by Marc Gunther and Bill Carter)

Although I didn't specifically remember it coming from Frick until I looked it up, I thought of the quote almost immediately when I read Will Leitch's Sports on Earth piece about people not attending football games after a weekend in which three of the four NFL playoff games where threatened by blackouts.

Leitch writes:

"There are many reasons for this, most of them apparent: Games are too expensive to attend, it's often cold, the beer is lousy and overpriced, football games have a dramatically higher lout-to-normal-human ratio than any other sport (and perhaps any other recreational activity, with the possible exception of a Wall Street bachelor party). But the main reason, clearly, is television. Put aside expense, or possible proximity to this person. Football is a sport that is more fun to watch on television than it is in person, and I'm not even sure it's all that close."

I agree ... and I don't.

First of all, the TV-versus-at-the-game issue is not limited to football, and it's nothing new, as the Frick quote above points out. After all, he was baseball commissioner during the 1950s and 1960s.

With the possible exception of hockey because it can be hard to see the puck, despite Fox's best efforts, any sport is better on TV than it is in person and always has been. I remember when my father went to his first NASCAR race in Dover several years ago; he said one thing that took some getting used to was that he wouldn't be able to see a replay when an accident happened.

If you come across an old game on ESPN Classic, MLB Network or elsewhere, even those prehistoric broadcasts make for a better viewing experience than at the game itself. Since I was watching the "Studio 42 with Bob Costas" interview with Reggie Jackson this morning, I'll use his three-homer game in the 1977 World Series as an example.



With a few exceptions (perhaps the people in the right field stands), hardly anyone at Yankee Stadium that night had a better view of what happened that night than the folks watching on TV. But the people at the stadium where there, and they can brag on that for the rest of their lives.

I wrote about the concept of "being there" a little more than a year ago, but being at the ballpark, stadium, arena, rink, racetrack or pitch is the reason to go, even if nothing historic happens. It's about the experience.

The problem is that we may have reached a tipping point, that during a time when television can present the game in more and different ways to people in the comfort of their living rooms than ever before, the cost of being there has maybe, just maybe outstripped the allure of being there.