IndyCar Points Change is a Head Scratcher

I do not get why IndyCar recently changed the math behind its heretofore pure points championship system.

To me, it's like trading away a second-round draft pick for $600 and a used washing machine.

On March 20, IndyCar announced changes to the way points will be awarded in 2014. You can read full details here, but head-scratcher for me was the concept of making performance on the 500-mile ovals TWICE as valuable as performance on every other race. And by enhancing points for the Indy 500 qualifying AND race, IndyCar has made it the most important points race of them all.

Huh?

Actually, the Indy 500 points bonanza fits with the league's Indy focus, but I don't get the thinking behind the other changes. IndyCar’s explanation for why it would double points awarded for finishes at the 500-mile ovals was:

“Adding more weight to the 500-mile events rewards teams and drivers that continually rise to the occasion at key times of the year,” said INDYCAR President of Competition and Operations Derrick Walker. “We looked at various ways to improve the way we decide our champions, and this will only make the championship battles more exciting.”

If the 500-mile races are "key times of the year," what's upcoming St. Pete and every other non-500-mile race? Not key? Semi-key?

It's just weird. I read a comment on another blog that proposed that doubling the points on thee ovals (Indy, Pocono and Fontana) is kind of a compensation for the lack of ovals on the schedule. In other words, since IndyCar doesn't offer races on more ovals, they are making these three big ovals more valuable. Sort of a points approach to the doubleheaders at twisties like Detroit.

Actually THAT is a more credible theory than what IndyCar offered: “reward teams and drivers that continually rise to the occasion at key times of the year.”

When NASCAR announced changes in the points system --  even if you thought they were goofy -- at least they communicated their reasoning well: to emphasize winning during the season and to create elimination games along the lines of the wildly popular NCAA basketball tournament during NASCAR's playoff "Chase."

Maybe you think that’s stupid (fair enough), but at least NASCAR's motivation was understandable.

By the way, the new NASCAR focus on winning is working. I and many others see the new “win and your in the Chase” rules encouraging drivers in the top five late in the race to push very hard for the win, in my opinion much harder than they would have under the old system of points.

As for the motivation for IndyCar’s change, I’m at a loss. The only thing I can imagine is that the double-points gives you a hook to hype the ovals. Tune in to Pocono because someone will win DOUBLE POINTS. It’s something, to be sure, but not much. If you have ideas, please comment below.

What the IndyCar points change did do is rob the league of its moral high ground when it comes to points championship. Up until the change, IndyCar could rightly say that it was a truly gimmick-free points championship, with no “Race for the Chase playoff,” or win-and-your-in, or any other impurity. Just a points structure that applied to every race, with the champion being the driver who had the most points at the end of the last race.

IndyCar’s legit and differentiating claim to points purity went out the window on March 20, and IndyCar got very little in return for giving it up.

Comments

[Brett]

500 mile races are (at least) twice the distance so twice the points just makes sense. (St. Pete this week is only 198 miles.) Same argument different reasoning for the comparison to double headers.

I really didn't like how they phase it because just saying "double points" sounds too much like a copy of F1 which everyone was making fun of (and all races are approximately the same length.) However, to have total points available based on race length does make sense to me.

[Dylan]

I disagree. Indycar can still say it's more pure than NASCAR. Is it true? It's a matter of opinion, but that doesn't matter for marketing. I agree that this is a good thing as it emphasizes ovals, and Indycar needs that. Plus I think talking about how Indycar is more pure than other racing is a dangerous road. Obviously NASCAR has some problems (elimiChases) but at the same time "purity" can sometimes be boring. Depending on what we're talking about. So I don't really want to see too much on "purity" because that can mean boring/status quo.

[Phil Kaiser, Indianapolis, IN]

The thing that bugged me the most about the change was when folks started doing the math and came up with the fact that Takuma Sato's seventh at Indianapolis will be worth more than his win at Long Beach! THAT is total BS in my book, and I'm the most rabid Indianapolis 500 fan out here!

[Ted Wolfram]

If you have nothing to say...it is always wise to shut up.....IndyCar management doesn't agree...they think if you have nothing to say....you create "push to pass", promise changes in 2015-16-17-18, add more concerts, raise ticket prices, charge for parking, and screw up the scoring!!! And of course when attendance goes down and the TV ratings are below a snakes belly.......IT is...............(you fill in the excuse....I've run out of them!!

[Ron Ford]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The new point system stinks and will lead to some very bizarre unintended consequences as Phil Kaiser alluded to above.

When the championship goes down to the last race year after year, why is a radical change necessary?

Every time IndyCar takes a positive step forward they then take two steps back.

[billytheskink]

I thought it was a puzzling decision as well, especially the timing... so close to the beginning of the season. Even a well thought out decision looks less like one when it is poorly timed.

I actually don't mind awarding more points for longer races and extra points for Indy qualifying (though I think too many are offered in this system), but I would like to see these additional points awarded based on some structure.

The old USAC points system specified how many points it gave out based on race distance, more points for longer races. The new system does not have such sensible reasoning.

[ramblinman]

I lament the lack of ovals and perhaps this is a away of rewarding the drivers/teams who excel at the oval races (like IndyCar fave Ed Carpenter).

I'm okay with the change as I feel that the 500 races are more demanding and more competitive than the twisties. The doubleheaders on some of the really boring single file tracks are kinda weird IMO.

Things are far from perfect with IndyCar and they've certainly had their ups and downs over the decades but I'm actually okay with this change. I think. For now.

As Phil Kaiser mentions above, things may get rather messy with the new system. I hope that it works well though.

Ready for the Green Flag!