Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean
To each his own. The fact that more than 2 teams and 4 drivers can win, that you have to compete to even make the race and that there is more than one pass for the lead per race makes the series a whole lot more interesting than F1 IMHO.
Feel free to start your own F1 thread.  |
What's better? Two teams and 4 drivers battling it out for the season (we can get to the fact that F1's got more parity this season than it's had in decades later), or 10 teams rolling a D43 to see who gets to win the biggest race of the season?
I'm not knocking NASCAR for having too much parity... I'm knocking it for the parity being manufactured by series rules more than anything else. There
aren't a bunch of teams out there that can win, there are a bunch of teams out there being propped up so they can win.
Maybe it's just that I haven't been watching a lot of NASCAR the last season or 5... but I tuned in to the race today, and it turned me off. Maybe it's just that restrictor racing's issues are just more obvious with the new car (though everyone was claiming it made the racing so much better?), or just because the teams are all still learning the new car... all I know is that the race I watched looked like 90% of what it takes to win is lucking out to be in the right line that happens to be going to the front at the end of the race.
Good racing shouldn't be qualified by the number of lead changes, or the amount of time the field spends side-by-side. It should be qualified by watching the drivers do amazing things at amazing speeds, and by out smarting the guy on the track, or when a crew chief makes a ballsy call and it pays off. F1's certainly not the "best racing"... the Daytona Prototypes, or Speed WC cars, or the ALMS GT cars... that's good racing. Hell, even a nice close ASP battle is more entertaining than the Daytona 500 was this year.
/jaded