|
The IMSA points made ZERO sense and frankly I could not care any less who the season champ is there, feels like a pointless bit of the long season but I get they like the trophies.
Indy seems fine, the argument for winning is the point ignored the same thing one Mr Herta has this season, you can't win if you break your equipment. Power did the best with his equipment across the season, you get trophies for winning. You get, and deserve, nothing for not finishing. I think it better if you're not running at the end of the race, no points at all. The point is to cover the given distance the fastest, if you didn't cover the distance then you failed. I get then issuing points for cars lapped starts to make no sense but I feel running means you could at least get there.
Current tally shows it's far better to be Top 5 as you would expect than consistently 6-10, see the 13 Top 10s to 12, but 12 Top 5s to 8.
Now I do NOT like the double Indy 500, or cancelled double season finale points. Points should be points flat. If they want flexible points I could see points over distance, longer race gets more points and shorter gets proportionately fewer. Winner of 1 of double header weekend would get fewer than a "full race distance" event as the double headers are generally shorter. Iowa was 491 miles (223 and 268) vs WWTR at 325 and Texas 375. That's 4 of 19 races and then the variety of road course speeds means varied race lengths so not really linear there. But if they want to make it complicated.
|