How to fix the chase & make everyone happy.

[Markfan]

in my opinion the new points have done exactly what they were supposed to do. They weren't supposed to make it closer, they were supposed to make it easier to understand.

The thing is though, while they are making it easier to understand, they also took away a lot of the value of battling up front. When you were making a pass in/into the top 5, it was worth 2 more points than if you were making a pass for, say, 41st. Not to mention, teams do not get owner points any more when they don't qualify.

Also the way the season is going, it looks like brad kesalowski has a good shot at being in the chase. That's pretty cool.

From a 20th place-position toss-in at best, he won't be able to make it in the hard way. *no offense, of course*

 

[JeffJordan]

The wild card stuff is honestly difficult to stomach...the idea of being 20th in points with a win and getting in the Chase sickens me.

 

[Mustang]

I like NASCAR every week. I can't live without it!! The chase at first was awsome. But at the end of the day it was JJ's to be won! My opinion - keep everything, but go to a few different tracks each year. (like Iowa, nashville, Mansfield...)

 

[HMAC80]

The wild card stuff is honestly difficult to stomach...the idea of being 20th in points with a win and getting in the Chase sickens me.

I have to disagree. The thing is, if they're running 20th in points anyways, it's obvious they don't have the kind of consistency to win the chase. They aren't going to outrun someone who has been in the top 5 all year long, so it's a bit of a non-issue.

That being said, I think it adds an extra level of excitement. Just the possibility of an underdog having a shot at the title sort of catches my interest (obviously the exact thing Nascar was trying to do when they implemented it).

Bottom line, it's for ratings.

 

[JeffJordan]

I have to disagree. The thing is, if they're running 20th in points anyways, it's obvious they don't have the kind of consistency to win the chase. They aren't going to outrun someone who has been in the top 5 all year long, so it's a bit of a non-issue.

However, they could overtake somebody in 11th with no wins but good consistency in comparison, replacing a better driver. That's my issue with it.

 

[RP Motorsports]

In 2004, Jeff Gordon led the standings by 60 points over JJ and in 2006, Matt Kenseth led the standings by 57 points over JJ. (Coincidentally, those are the only two times that JJ came even close to having the lead when coming into the chase)

Instead of saying most, maybe I should've said the majority. However, those are only two examples you gave. If it was worth the time, I could go through the books and give you alot more that didnt happen that close.

Under the old system, Kyle Busch would have lost the 2008 championship after entering with a 200+ point lead, while Tony would do the same in a 3-way, last race championship battle between JJ, Jeff and Tony that would have been less than 50 points from 1st to 3rd.

See above post.

Well, it has caused as many clinches as it has prevented.

How could it have caused as many clinches with 10 races to go? They reset the points going into the Chase. So even if the leader had 5 more wins than 2nd place, thats only 50 points up with 10 to go. I wouldnt call a 50 point lead with 10 races to go a clinch, not even by a long shot. Now sure, there have been a couple cases in which the championship was pretty much wrapped up maybe 3 or 4 races into the Chase but that wasnt my statement. My statement was that the Chase provides a close battle at least with 10 races to go.

2011 is a bit of an oddball season, but in general, it's almost always the same teams: Roush, Hendrick, Gibbs, Penske and Childress.

I wouldnt call 2011 an oddball season. In 2010 you had McMurray, Reutimann, Montoya win and they arent top-notch drivers on top teams. In 2009 you had Keselowski, Logano, Reutimann, Kahne, and Vickers win. Kahne could be argued to be a top-notch driver but certainly wasnt on a top team.

I know I mentioned Ganassi and Penske dominating Indycar, but the comparison you're trying to make saying that its the same in NASCAR, is not quite the same. All the Ganassi/Penske drivers in Indycar are top-notch drivers capable of winning any week. Thats not the case in NASCAR. Logano, Ragan, Keselowski, Menard are all on the top teams but arent top-notch drivers capable of winning any week. If any of them win a race, sure its one of the top teams, but it aint a top-notch driver so it wouldnt be the same as comparing it to Penske/Ganassi in Indycar. Not only that, but the other part of my point was that its two teams in IndyCar that have the field covered, whereas in NASCAR theres at least four, sometimes five top-notch teams.

The COT didn't bring the fields closer together, the mystery debris cautions and GWCs did.

Thats just crazy. The COT has been around for almost 4 years and other teams are starting to catch up on their engineering and understanding of it. I'm not saying the COT is the reason for the parity, I'm saying its part of it. To say that "mystery" debris cautions are whats brought parity to NASCAR is borderline absurd. When I say parity, I'm talking about these teams' overall program and performance. I'm not just talking about a few races in which the racing is tight because of restarts or something. Teams like Furniture Row, MWR, RPM, Red Bull Racing, and so on down the line have become better teams over the last 2-3 years. Thats the parity I'm talking about and it certainly didnt come from debris cautions.

In 2007, only seven teams had a victory (two of which only garnered one), not to mention that Hendrick literally won half of the cup races and just the victory totals of three organizations amounted to 29 out of 36 races.

Right. In 2007 they ran half the season with the downforce cars and half with the COT. That favored the top teams even more so than usual because the other teams have less money and resources and therefore had a higher mountain to climb in trying to figure out the COT. Also, the testing ban wasnt in place. That accounts for quite a bit. When you dont have the money to test, you're behind the 8-ball when it comes to engineering/developing your program. It widens the gap even more between the top, average, and bottom teams.

The COT itself did not make the field closer, and they didn't eliminate testing per sae, they just can't use official cup/busch/truck tracks.

My statement wasnt that the COT itself has closed the gap some. It was that the COT, ALONG with the testing ban at sanctioned tracks has closed the gap some. And yes, the testing ban is for NASCAR sanctioned tracks only. However, thats what really matters most. Testing at places like Little Rock or New Smyrna isnt going to get you anywhere near the gain you would get from testing at the same track you're going to race at. Not even close.

lol. You really think that the new points system closed up the field? Carl Edwards already has a 40 point lead in 13 races. Jimmie Johnson would have to place 4th without Carl even attempting the race for him to be tied again. Also, the whole "emphasis on victories" has failed miserably. The top 3 have a total of 2 wins among themselves. The seemingly close points standings are just a fabrication of a dumbed down points system, especially in the Nationwide series, where the points leader and 2nd place driver have obtained a whopping total of zero victories in nearly half of a season.

Absolutely I think it has. You have five different drivers in the top 10 that are less than 10 points behind the next position. Four of those are only two points or less. Thats only two positions on the race track. That is definitely closer than it usually had been.

As for the emphasis on winning, I dont necessarily think NASCAR failed miserably, but I'm also not sure they're doing exactly what they've described wanting to do. The jury is still out for me personally. With this new point system, every position on the race track is worth the same except for the win which is worth five points more, six if you lead the most laps. In the old system, positions were worth more as you got up into the top 10, top 5, and top 3. So in that respect, I do think the new system has seperated the value of a win a little more than the old system, but I'm still not sure I'd call it an emphasis on winning. I'm going to have to wait till the end of the season I think in order to figure out what exactly my opinion on it is.

It's more noticeable than ever in NASCAR. Which teams have won this year?

Roush Racing (3 wins)
-Wood Bros. [powered by Roush Racing] (1 win)
Hendrick Motorsports (2 wins)
Joe Gibbs Racing (2 wins)
Richard Childress Racing (3 wins)
-Furniture Row [powered by RCR] (1 win)
Penske (1 win)

7 teams (5 if you consider the satellite teams as "extensions"). And that's not even considering the previous seasons. Most teams now are circumventing the 4-car limit by supplying their superior engines/chassis to satellite teams. Two of which are Furniture Row and Woods Bros.

Part of this goes back to my post above about comparing the top IndyCar teams to the top NASCAR teams.

While I do partly agree with your point on satellite type teams or teams that get equipment from top teams, I dont think you can just group them in as if they are a top team because of it. Its one thing to get the equipment and some help, but you still have to do the work and execute. If it was the same, then those teams would run up front on a consistent basis as the top teams do, and thats not the case.

That has applied pretty solidly to Hendrick, Roush, Gibbs and Childress (ESPECIALLY the first two) for the entirety of the chase's existance [not related, though]:

2011
1) Roush Racing: 3 wins
1) Richard Childress Racing: 3 wins
3) Hendrick Motorsports: 2 wins
3) Joe Gibbs Racing: 2 wins
5) Penske Racing: 1 win
5) Wood Bros. Racing: 1 win
5) Furniture Row Racing: 1 win

2010
1) Joe Gibbs Racing: 11 wins
2) Hendrick Motorsports: 6 wins
3) Richard Childress Racing: 5 wins
4) Roush Racing: 4 wins
4) Earnhardt-Ganassi: 4 wins

2009
1) Hendrick Motorsports: 13 wins
2) Joe Gibbs Racing: 8 wins
3) Stewart-Haas Racing: 4 wins
4) Roush Racing: 3 wins
5) Penske Racing: 2 wins

2008
1) Roush Racing: 11 wins
2) Joe Gibbs Racing: 10 wins
3) Hendrick Motorsports: 8 wins
4) Richard Childress Racing: 3 wins
5) Penske Racing: 2 wins
5) Evernham Motorsports: 2 wins

2007 (7 teams took all 36 victories)
1) Hendrick Motorsports: 18 wins
2) Roush Racing: 7 wins
3) Joe Gibbs Racing: 4 wins
4) Richard Childress Racing: 3 wins
5) Penske Racing: 2 wins
6) Dale Earnhardt Inc.: 1 win
6) Ganassi Racing: 1 win


2006
1) Hendrick Motorsports: 9 wins
2) Joe Gibbs Racing: 7 wins
3) Roush Racing: 6 wins
3) Richard Childress Racing: 6 wins
3) Evernham Motorsports: 6 wins

2005
1) Roush Racing: 15 wins
2) Hendrick Motorsports: 10 wins
3) Joe Gibbs Racing: 5 wins
4) Evernham Motorsports; 2 wins
5) Richard Childress Racing: 1 win
5) Penske Racing: 1 win
5) Robert Yates Racing: 1 win
5) Dale Earnhardt Inc.: 1 win


2004
1) Hendrick Motorsports: 13 wins
2) Roush Racing: 8 wins
3) Dale Earnhardt Inc.: 6 wins
4) Penske Racing: 3 wins
5) Joe Gibbs Racing: 2 wins
5) Robert Yates Racing: 2 wins

My comparison was made about two teams in IndyCar that dominate the series. Every one of these lists you compiled contain at least 5 different teams. Also, this fits in with what I was saying in my previous post about comparing Penske/Ganassi Indycar teams to NASCAR top teams because some of those wins you have listed came from drivers who are on top teams but arent top-notch drivers capable of winning any week like with Penske/Ganassi in Indycar.

That is your opinion, I believe that the only season which was worse was 2007's.

It definitely is my opinion, but I think it is shared by the majority, at least from what I can see. I listen to a minimum of 40 hours a week of Sirius NASCAR. I watch every single broadcast of every race, practice, qualifying, as well as all the other NASCAR related programming on any and every channel. I visit several message boards/forums, columns, publishings, websites, blogs, articles, etc.. on a daily basis. From all of those outlets, whether it be fans, media, drivers, owners, or other people in the sport, the vast majority have the opinion that the last 1-2 years have been some of the best racing ever in NASCAR. I'm pretty confident thats more than a good enough sample size. In fact, I'm damn near sure of it.

-Ryan

 

[WinstonCup426]

Give them a bigger box to work inside. START UP THE AERO WARS AGAIN!!!

That may very well happen with the new bodies in 2013.

 

[celticfang]

If it does I for one will be excited. To see 43 identical cars is boring to me, I'd much rather the COT as a base then the car makers could bring out whatever body they want on it that fits the templates, while not being allowed to copy another make's shape could, if done right, prove to be interesting.

As for the chase. IMO, being a champion is being the best over a whole season. CFB example, the NCAA doesn't reset everyone's poll votes for the top 10 ranked teams do they after week 8? NASCAR does not, and SHOULD NOT IN MY OPINION, have a gimmicky 'playoff' system. Yes, the season title may be decided by race 26. But you simply will not get a close finish each and every time, sports does not work like that. Yes, when it happens it is dramatic and amazing, however, too much drama and excitement and people get used to it.

IMHO, NASCAR ought to keep the current points, and scrap the chase, it is simply a gimmick. When you get guys like JJ saying for the first 26 races he isn't even trying, that says a lot to me about the value of the regular season vs the Chase. The first 26 races should not be glorified tests, they are 26 races in their own right.

My idea for the chase. Pick 10 races scattered throughout the season for the first year (e.g. Daytona 500, Southern 500, Watkins Glen, Bristol, Martinsville, Atlanta, Coke 600). Pick them for their significance, but every year, switch up which races constitute the chase, keep those races sealed, more to keep the drivers on edge and thinking every race counts.

 

[JamesFranklin84]

That may very well happen with the new bodies in 2013.

Haven't heard about this. What new bodies in 2013?

 

[dalejrgamer]

Haven't heard about this. What new bodies in 2013?

The 4 competing manufacturers had a meeting with NASCAR (if not, will have) to discuss the radical overhaul of the COT...most likely to resemble cars off the showroom floor...or looks like one, anyway.

 

[DBReaver35]

Actually it has been stated that Manufacturers are working with NASCAR to design new COTs.
Ford is really push for a style like NNS cot to run Mustangs in cup.

 

[JamesFranklin84]

The 4 competing manufacturers had a meeting with NASCAR (if not, will have) to discuss the radical overhaul of the COT...most likely to resemble cars off the showroom floor...or looks like one, anyway.

So make them more like the Ford Mustang resembles the Ford Mustang in real life for Nationwide, etc. That'll be nice, I doubt it will change much though. Watching today's race I really realized how much closer these cars resemble the old cars without that nasty splitter.

I wish they would make them a little more fragile...you hit the wall you should pay for it the whole race not still be able to recover. That's another gripe I have. I hate the waive around and lucky dog. You should have to fight your way back onto the lead lap. Going 3 laps down and getting the waive around 3 times to come back and win the race (Kyle Busch) shouldn't happen in today's age. You mess up, whether it be driver or crew or strategy, you should have to pay the penalty.

 

[Markfan]

I wish they would make them a little more fragile...you hit the wall you should pay for it the whole race not still be able to recover.

Why? The exterior of the COT is weak compared to that of the cars from the late-80s-early-00s. The interior is safer, no doubt, but that's about the only thing going for it.

That's another gripe I have. I hate the waive around and lucky dog. You should have to fight your way back onto the lead lap.

Going 3 laps down and getting the waive around 3 times to come back and win the race (Kyle Busch) shouldn't happen in today's age. You mess up, whether it be driver or crew or strategy, you should have to pay the penalty.

Exactly. And, like the Chase, the Lucky Dog was an invention of Brian France's that occurred within a month of Bill France Jr. stepping down (late 2003). That's why you don't see it in NASCAR Racing 2003 Season.

 

[Julio Chang]

So make them more like the Ford Mustang resembles the Ford Mustang in real life for Nationwide, etc. That'll be nice, I doubt it will change much though. Watching today's race I really realized how much closer these cars resemble the old cars without that nasty splitter.

I wish they would make them a little more fragile...you hit the wall you should pay for it the whole race not still be able to recover. That's another gripe I have. I hate the waive around and lucky dog. You should have to fight your way back onto the lead lap. Going 3 laps down and getting the waive around 3 times to come back and win the race (Kyle Busch) shouldn't happen in today's age. You mess up, whether it be driver or crew or strategy, you should have to pay the penalty.

What race was this?

 

[JamesFranklin84]

What race was this?

I searched but I can't find it and don't really want to take the time. It was last season, that's all I remember.

 

[Markfan]

Woops, forgot to post my response to RP.

Instead of saying most, maybe I should've said the majority. However, those are only two examples you gave. If it was worth the time, I could go through the books and give you alot more that didnt happen that close.

While true, they weren't overly uncommon, and several comebacks have been made.

How could it have caused as many clinches with 10 races to go? They reset the points going into the Chase.

I meant last race clinches, not ones with 10 to go. 2008 and 2009 would have come down to the double or even the single digits without the chase, but instead were virtually locked up at Homestead's starting grid. Similarly, 2006 would have made out to a much closer points race without the chase.

I wouldnt call 2011 an oddball season. In 2010 you had McMurray, Reutimann, Montoya win and they arent top-notch drivers on top teams.

In 2009 you had Keselowski, Logano, Reutimann, Kahne, and Vickers win. Kahne could be argued to be a top-notch driver but certainly wasnt on a top team.

Evernham was a great team for a while, and, excluding Keselowski's 1st (which was a product of the 2-car draft), all of those teams are fully funded, full-time teams and consistently run in the top 20 . The same could not be said about Furniture Row or Wood Bros.

I know I mentioned Ganassi and Penske dominating Indycar, but the comparison you're trying to make saying that its the same in NASCAR, is not quite the same. All the Ganassi/Penske drivers in Indycar are top-notch drivers capable of winning any week.

While perhaps not "all" of the big four are capable of winning week in and week out, expecting someone other than the following:

-Jeff Gordon
-Mark Martin
-Jimmie Johnson
-Dale Earnhardt Jr.
-Matt Kenseth
-Greg Biffle
-Carl Edwards
-David Ragan
-Kevin Harvick
-Jeff Burton
-Clint Bowyer
-Denny Hamlin
-Kyle Busch
-Joey Logano

Is asking for a lot.

Thats not the case in NASCAR. Logano, Ragan, Keselowski, Menard are all on the top teams but arent top-notch drivers capable of winning any week.

That's a product of sponsors wanting young faces for marketing purposes, rather than drivers who are actually in contention. Somehow, Mark Martin is the only one that can really get away with being older and still getting sponsorship, as there are plenty of ignored drivers that don't get rides simply because of their age. (i.e. Steve Park, Ward Burton, Kenny Wallace, Mike Wallace, Rich Bickle, Jimmy Spencer, Sterling Marlin, Ron Fellows, Ricky Craven, Ted Musgrave and many others)

Johnny Benson was an EXTREME example of this. The truck team that he drove for closed down the season after he won the championship, and no one bothered to pick him up.

If any of them win a race, sure its one of the top teams, but it aint a top-notch driver so it wouldnt be the same as comparing it to Penske/Ganassi in Indycar.

See the above.

Not only that, but the other part of my point was that its two teams in IndyCar that have the field covered, whereas in NASCAR theres at least four, sometimes five top-notch teams.

While true, four or five teams still are covering an entire series, and they do it in more than twice as many races. 2 dominating 17 races is not that different from 4 dominating 36.

Thats just crazy. The COT has been around for almost 4 years and other teams are starting to catch up on their engineering and understanding of it.

Are you referring to the finishes, or the points?

I'm not saying the COT is the reason for the parity, I'm saying its part of it.

Fair enough.

To say that "mystery" debris cautions are whats brought parity to NASCAR is borderline absurd.

Not necessarily directly, but they do allow more lucky dogs and wave arounds then would otherwise occur, allowing more drivers to stay on the lead lap. Then in the past, where if you were a lap down, the only to make it back was to get around the leaders themselves under green (not counting when the "lapped" cars restarted in front of the leaders).

When I say parity, I'm talking about these teams' overall program and performance. I'm not just talking about a few races in which the racing is tight because of restarts or something. Teams like Furniture Row, MWR, RPM, Red Bull Racing, and so on down the line have become better teams over the last 2-3 years. Thats the parity I'm talking about and it certainly didnt come from debris cautions.

While you do have a case for Furniture Row and Reutimann, the other three have virtually stalled out (in terms of equipment, not driver selection) for several seasons. Also, the parity in NASCAR has dropped significantly.

See this post that I had made in a prior discussion:

http://www.simracingdesign.com/nasc...-numbers-about-nascar-winners.html#post244083

When counting teams that had victories, only one season post-chase has been better than the lowest seasonal total prior to 2004, and those were done with less races per season, and, as stated, we haven't had a season where 10-or-more teams obtained a victory in one cup season since 2002.

Right. In 2007 they ran half the season with the downforce cars and half with the COT. That favored the top teams even more so than usual because the other teams have less money and resources and therefore had a higher mountain to climb in trying to figure out the COT. Also, the testing ban wasnt in place. That accounts for quite a bit. When you dont have the money to test, you're behind the 8-ball when it comes to engineering/developing your program. It widens the gap even more between the top, average, and bottom teams.

But the separation was still pretty significant in 2006, a season prior to the COT's debut:

2006 (7 teams):
Hendrick (9 wins)
Joe Gibbs (7 wins)
Evernham (6 wins)
Roush Racing (6 wins)
Richard Childress (6 wins)
Penske Racing (1 win)
Earnhardt (1 win)

My statement wasnt that the COT itself has closed the gap some. It was that the COT, ALONG with the testing ban at sanctioned tracks has closed the gap some.

See the above for my counters to that statement.

And yes, the testing ban is for NASCAR sanctioned tracks only. However, thats what really matters most. Testing at places like Little Rock or New Smyrna isnt going to get you anywhere near the gain you would get from testing at the same track you're going to race at. Not even close.

While true, they definitely can help with short tracks, restrictor-plate races and road courses.

Absolutely I think it has. You have five different drivers in the top 10 that are less than 10 points behind the next position. Four of those are only two points or less. Thats only two positions on the race track. That is definitely closer than it usually had been.

Not really.

Look, this is how the top 6 (well, the top 6 under their respective systems, I didn't check further back [i.e. Matt Kenseth probably would be in the top 6 under the previous system in 2011]) in 2010 and 2011 (13 races in) are using the prior system:

2010:
1) Kevin Harvick 1898 points
2) Kyle Busch 1869 (-29) [about 6-10 positions behind 1st]
3) Matt Kenseth 1781 (-117) [about 24-29 positions behind 2nd]
4) Jeff Gordon 1760 (-138) [about 4-7 positions behind 3rd]
5) Denny Hamlin 1732 (-166) [about 6-9 positions behind 4th]
6) Kurt Busch 1726 (-172) [2 positions behind 5th]

2011:
1) Carl Edwards 1974 points
2) Kevin Harvick 1842 points (-132) [38 positions behind 1st]
3) Jimmie Johnson 1817 points (-157) [5-8 positions behind 2nd]
4) Dale Earnhardt Jr. 1792 points (-182) [about 5-8 positions behind 3rd]
5) Kyle Busch 1783 points (-191) [about 2-3 positions behind 4th]
6) Kurt Busch 1716 points (-258) [about 16-to-22 positions behind 5th]


This is how they both look like in the new system:

2010:
1) Kevin Harvick 470 points
2) Kyle Busch 460 (-10) [10 postitions behind 1st]
3) Matt Kenseth 439 (-31) [ 21 positions behind 2nd]
4) Jeff Gordon 423 (-47) [16 positions behind 3rd]
5) Denny Hamlin 415 (-55) [8 positions behind 4th]
6) Kurt Busch 410 (-60) [5 positions behind 5th]


2011:
1) Carl Edwards
2) Jimmie Johnson -40 [40 positions behind 1st]
3) Dale Earnhardt Jr. -41 [one position behind 2nd]
4) Kevin Harvick - 43 [2 positions behind 3rd]
5) Kyle Busch -60 [17 positions behind 4th]
6) Kurt Busch -71 [11 positions behind 5th]



The apparent "closeness" is all due to the numbers and digits. They were trying to make it look closer than it really is. All this new system did (besides dumb down the points), is making competition near the lead less important and leading less important. Also, as you can see by looking at the six drivers listed above for 2010, the ones that were hurt the most by the new system were the drivers that won and were up front more frequently. So this new system actually rewards consistency more than the previous one did, as well as weakening the value of a win.

Though the 3 point bonus for winning might seem significant compared to last season, it really is only equivalent to a 5-point increment from last year, with one notable exception: since the top 10 now earns less points in comparison to the rest of the field. Wins are worth less than they were before

For comparison's sake, let's say that we multiplied the current system by 3 and added 31 points to every position (so that last still has 34), and let's say that the winner dominated the whole race and led the most laps (and thus 6 bonus points, since we're multiplying the points earned in the new system by 3) :

1st would have earned a whopping . . . . 181 points. 9 less than before. Now, that might not seem that significant, but let's compare 2nd with 43rd. 2nd now [ignoring bonus points] gets the equivalent of 157 points (13 points less), the amount that was worth less than what fourth earned the previous seasons, but at the same time, the other positions did not lose as much comparitvely (i.e. 43rd is still 34 points, 10th is now worth one less point and 5th is worth 7 less), so, while it does emphasize 1st in comparison with the rest of top 10, it has made being outside of the top 20 less harmful to the points standings, thus reducing some of the competitive edge (not even including the deceivingly low numbers that are already churned out by the new system).

As for the emphasis on winning, I dont necessarily think NASCAR failed miserably, but I'm also not sure they're doing exactly what they've described wanting to do.

Not one winner at Daytona earned points, that's a pretty huge failure. Plus, see the above for when it comes to points and how positions are worth less now.

While I do partly agree with your point on satellite type teams or teams that get equipment from top teams, I dont think you can just group them in as if they are a top team because of it.

Its one thing to get the equipment and some help, but you still have to do the work and execute. If it was the same, then those teams would run up front on a consistent basis as the top teams do, and thats not the case.

True, but they wouldn't be anywhere near as good (or possibly there at all) without their support.

My comparison was made about two teams in IndyCar that dominate the series. Every one of these lists you compiled contain at least 5 different teams.

That was only for comparison. It was just to emphasize how significantly dominating JGR, RR, HMS and RCR are.

It definitely is my opinion, but I think it is shared by the majority, at least from what I can see.

Then you should look up a ton of the NASCAR videos on youtube. About 75% of the ones that I've seen say stuff like "the Chase sucks","**** the Chase","Brian France doesn't know what he's doing", "I miss when they used to race like this" and the like.

NASCAR.com had a poll last winter asking if anyone's opinion on the chase had changed. The three options were [not in these exact words] "No. I've always liked it" "Yes, I like it now" and "No, I'll never like it".

"No, I'll never like it" garnered 57% of the poll's submissions on their own site. That says a lot.

There was also A LOT of opposition to the introduction of the COT and ESPECIALLY this new system. Also, the whole reason that they changed the front and back of the car was because so many people hated it.

And if it has been the "best racing in NASCAR". Why are the ratings going down, as well as the popularity and funding? It's not the economy causing this, I can assure you. It's the way they are handling the sport.

Why else would Daytona remove 22,000 seats? That's roughly 13% of the previous capacity! And that isn't even the only one that is reducing in size.

I listen to a minimum of 40 hours a week of Sirius NASCAR. I watch every single broadcast of every race, practice, qualifying, as well as all the other NASCAR related programming on any and every channel. I visit several message boards/forums, columns, publishings, websites, blogs, articles, etc.. on a daily basis. From all of those outlets, whether it be fans, media, drivers, owners, or other people in the sport, the vast majority have the opinion that the last 1-2 years have been some of the best racing ever in NASCAR. I'm pretty confident thats more than a good enough sample size. In fact, I'm damn near sure of it.

What forums would these be? And of course Sirius NASCAR is going to say that it has been the best 2 years, they're together on a contractual basis and they just love [understandably] the money that comes in from the advertising.

Also, I'd like you to take a look at this:

Jayski's® NASCAR Silly Season Site - Sprint Cup Series Television Ratings 2010

Virtually every season has been getting SIGNIFICANTLY fewer and fewer viewers [not just ticket purchases, but people watching it from the television, too], and that's a bad and obvious sign which is showing what is going on in the fanbase.