I think that 2000 is going to be a very interesting season with the
provisionals. You have a bunch of new teams running WC on regular
basis this year (DE Jr., Kenseth, Robby Gordon, etc) and no announced
retirements. Most weekends, you may see 50+ teams trying out for the
race. Provisionals will be at a premium.
Will this be the season when NASCAR has to tell a "big name" driver
that they will be having a weekend off?
In my opinion I think there should be no provisionals. If you can’t qualify
then you don’t race. If they are going to have provisionals then they
should just have qualifying for 30 or 35 spots instead of 42. And leave the
remaining spots for provisionals.
Some teams don’t work as hard on qualifying because of the provisionals and
thats not good.
Good for whom? You think anyone wants to start 37th?
I’m tired of seeing bitches about provisionals. Better past records
should get a break, if needed, tho I think it should be by driver (on
points standing?), rather than owner points (tho I still can’t figure
how those work).
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:10:10 GMT, "John" <fri…@skyweb.net> wrote:
>In my opinion I think there should be no provisionals. If you can’t qualify
>then you don’t race. If they are going to have provisionals then they
>should just have qualifying for 30 or 35 spots instead of 42. And leave the
>remaining spots for provisionals.
>Some teams don’t work as hard on qualifying because of the provisionals and
>thats not good.
brad snow wrote:
> I’m tired of seeing bitches about provisionals. Better past records
> should get a break, if needed, tho I think it should be by driver (on
> points standing?), rather than owner points (tho I still can’t figure
> how those work).
Sorry to hear about your discussion fatigue. But my opinion is that
racing is about who is going fast this week on this track. Folks who
come up short belong at the back of the pack and/or out of the race.
That’s racing. If a new team, a young team, or an old team has got
its act together and knows how to go faster around this track this
week, I think they deserve to be in the show.
To put it another way, I don’t see how competition is bad for
competition.
Marty
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole…@canisius.edu> wrote:
> But my opinion is that
>racing is about who is going fast this week on this track. Folks who
>come up short belong at the back of the pack and/or out of the race.
I agree with you, except it does seem fair to me to accomodate the
guy who should be fast, but due to unavoidable circumstance (motor
blows, cuts a tire & wrecks, etc) can’t show it. I don’t like the current
circumstance of cars that are simply slow getting in on provisionals.
That’s why I’d like to see only one or two provisionals, and let the
rest be determined by speed alone.
John
I think that provisionals have been a part of NASCAR since the early 70s and I
don’t see it going away anytime soon. Provisionals benefits any team that earns
the benefit. I just don’t see how it hurts anyone. Teams earn the amount of
provisionals they can access, just like how competitors earn positions on the
track. Not every team is going to be good enough for the field every week. Some
drivers are great racers but not good qualifers. It’s consistancy that pays your
way into the race. Once you can consistantly qualify for a series of races, your
team gets a freebie, the team has earned it. If you can’t do that then maybe your
team dosen’t belong in the field. Yes, racing is about going fast but during the
race. To qualify, teams earn the spot in the field and provisionals are a part of
that. The system dosen’t hurt anyone.
With those complaining that provisionals should be outsed should get back to the
shop. It is very tiresome to see all that is said about the use of provisionals.
Sympathy dosen’t get any team into a starting field. Speed and points do.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
brad snow wrote:
> Good for whom? You think anyone wants to start 37th?
> I’m tired of seeing bitches about provisionals. Better past records
> should get a break, if needed, tho I think it should be by driver (on
> points standing?), rather than owner points (tho I still can’t figure
> how those work).
> On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:10:10 GMT, "John" <fri…@skyweb.net> wrote:
> >In my opinion I think there should be no provisionals. If you can’t qualify
> >then you don’t race. If they are going to have provisionals then they
> >should just have qualifying for 30 or 35 spots instead of 42. And leave the
> >remaining spots for provisionals.
> >Some teams don’t work as hard on qualifying because of the provisionals and
> >thats not good.
Victor Manes wrote:
> … Provisionals benefits any team that earns
> the benefit. … Teams earn the amount of
> provisionals they can access, just like how competitors earn positions on the
> track.
OK, I’ll use this idea to comfort myself. I doubt very much that
NASCAR is even considering whether to change the provisional
system, so I may as well take the best possible view of it.
The teams that contribute the most to the sport by running well
most often get the most starting spots.
Marty
In article <384FFC4B.49C6E…@bestweb.net>,
> With those complaining that provisionals should be outsed should get
back to the
> shop. It is very tiresome to see all that is said about the use of
provisionals.
> Sympathy dosen’t get any team into a starting field. Speed and points
do.
Well, I don’t think too many people have too much of a problem with the
concept of holding a few spots in the field for teams who have earned
the points, but are having a "bad qualifying day".
But the key word there is "few". Seven is just too dang many
provisionals. If 43 cars are going to race, at least 40 of them should
be there because they earned their starting spot on speed.
–
* Bob Paxton Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati *
* paxto…@popmail.firn.edu *
* http://www.nefec.org/bobp *
* FIGHT SPAM! JOIN CAUCE http://www.cauce.org *
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
I’m sure NASCAR is relieved that you’re more comfortable with this and that the
rules are not there just to annoy people. Although I don’t want to be too pesky
about this but the rules are pretty clear. If a team can be more competitive then
that will equal better finishes. Better finishes=more points. More points=more
provisionals and/or better chances. Remember, no team "gets" a starting
spot………the team "earns" a starting spot by being competitive.
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Victor Manes wrote:
> > … Provisionals benefits any team that earns
> > the benefit. … Teams earn the amount of
> > provisionals they can access, just like how competitors earn positions on the
> > track.
> OK, I’ll use this idea to comfort myself. I doubt very much that
> NASCAR is even considering whether to change the provisional
> system, so I may as well take the best possible view of it.
> The teams that contribute the most to the sport by running well
> most often get the most starting spots.
> Marty
Like your buddy says, "Sorry to hear about your discussion fatigue."
You have a good point on how many provisionals should there be allowed in a
race. How did NASCAR come up with that number? I couldn’t tell you but I
don’t see this key word "few".
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Bob Paxton wrote:
> In article <384FFC4B.49C6E…@bestweb.net>,
> > With those complaining that provisionals should be outsed should get
> back to the
> > shop. It is very tiresome to see all that is said about the use of
> provisionals.
> > Sympathy dosen’t get any team into a starting field. Speed and points
> do.
> Well, I don’t think too many people have too much of a problem with the
> concept of holding a few spots in the field for teams who have earned
> the points, but are having a "bad qualifying day".
> But the key word there is "few". Seven is just too dang many
> provisionals. If 43 cars are going to race, at least 40 of them should
> be there because they earned their starting spot on speed.
> —
> * Bob Paxton Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati *
> * paxto…@popmail.firn.edu *
> * http://www.nefec.org/bobp *
> * FIGHT SPAM! JOIN CAUCE http://www.cauce.org *
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
In article <38514C6B.7FBCB…@bestweb.net>,
Drafting…@netscape.net wrote:
> Like your buddy says, "Sorry to hear about your discussion fatigue."
> You have a good point on how many provisionals should there be allowed
in a
> race. How did NASCAR come up with that number? I couldn’t tell you but
I
> don’t see this key word "few".
Well in that case, why don’t we just line up the whole field every week
according to owner points and forget about qualifying altogether…..
–
* Bob Paxton Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati *
* paxto…@popmail.firn.edu *
* http://www.nefec.org/bobp *
* FIGHT SPAM! JOIN CAUCE http://www.cauce.org *
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Aside from not liking provisionals, any comments on who is going to
miss out in 2000?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 15:05:03 GMT, nice69…@hotmail.com wrote:
>I think that 2000 is going to be a very interesting season with the
>provisionals. You have a bunch of new teams running WC on regular
>basis this year (DE Jr., Kenseth, Robby Gordon, etc) and no announced
>retirements. Most weekends, you may see 50+ teams trying out for the
>race. Provisionals will be at a premium.
>Will this be the season when NASCAR has to tell a "big name" driver
>that they will be having a weekend off?