As always around this time of year, people have their own ways that they would "improve" (read: screw up further) the Chase. The topic of this Tweet is, without question, the dumbest of them all:
Ah, yes, the "a win should get you in the Chase no matter who you are" fix. These people are the reason the Chase shouldn't exist in the first place.
So, you're telling me, sir, that just because David Ragan won a race where his car actually had a chance of winning, he should be running for the championship? He deserves the nod over Junior? Even though Ragan's win at Talladega is also his only Top 5 and Top 10 finish of the season? Even though Ragan's average finish on the season is 26th? Digging further into Ragan's stats, his second best finish of the season is 12th at Bristol a few weeks back, when Front Row actually had some speed at a track other than one where you need a restrictor plate.
Junior's average finish, meanwhile, is 14th. He has two runner-up finishes so far, along with three other Top 5s. Junior also possesses 14 Top 10s. He probably would've won both Michigan races if his engine hadn't gone up in the June race, and he hadn't had a tire blow while leading in August.
To give Ragan a Chase spot over Junior just because he "won a race" is not only idiotic, it's completely farcical. You'd also have to give a spot to Brian Vickers based upon his win in Loudon two months ago, and he's running a part-time schedule and can't actually get Cup points, because he's running for the Nationwide title.
So, if a road course ringer like Ron Fellows or Boris Said wins at Sonoma or Watkins Glen, they should get into the Chase, too? See, here's where the "a win should get you into the Chase, no matter who you are" crowd's logic really slips. Do you think Fellows and Said would stand a chance on a 10-race, all-oval slate? Except for Talladega (noting, of course, that Said almost won at Daytona a few years back), no. They're road course specialists. They show up twice a year, because that's what they're good on: ROAD COURSES!
Clint Bowyer, despite his antics on Saturday, also deserved (yes, I typed it in past tense) a spot over Ragan. Bowyer has 8 Top 5s so far this year. In a "winners-only" Chase, he'd be gone, too. Again, a farce.
Look, I know the "winners only in the Chase" crowd mean well, but, they're stupid. Would it really look good for NASCAR if David Ragan and Brian Vickers were allowed to compete for its biggest championship, when neither of them, especially Ragan, would have a shot in Hell of winning it? Of course not. That would break the string that is NASCAR's remaining shred of credibility (after yesterday)...if they have any left at all. I'm betting not. God forbid comes the day when the person who wins the most races wins the championship. If Ragan won all four plate races, and nobody else won four period, and Ragan won the title, and he was still finishing in the 20s on average, he would be the most undeserving Sprint Cup champion of all-time.
This "wins should mean the most" rhetoric is absolute garbage. I don't care if Matt Kenseth wins 10 races, if he finishes 43rd the rest of the time, and doesn't win the title, guess what? He didn't deserve it! The champion should be the most consistent, not the one who wins the most races. The "the guy who wins the most races should be champion" logic would be perfectly valid if all the cars were equally prepared by the same people, a la IROC. But, they aren't.
So, let's stop with the wins garbage. Because nothing will convince me otherwise.
-CRL
