Prelude to the Chase, Part 2

When I first wrote the article, “Prelude to the Chase, Part 1,” the concept behind the story was not to belittle NASCAR by trying to say the points race was a bad idea.

Instead, it was more focused at shedding a brighter light on why and where the chase was created and, of course, to bring to the forefront one of the flaws that has most fans baffled.

Now, a change to a sport's format doesn’t always work, or in this instance, a change may not always make a sport more exciting as well as more appealing to the fans.

When a product that has been successful for 50+ years, and it’s served its purpose, why would anyone want to throw a monkey wrench into it without first taking the time to thoroughly research it?

It was more than obvious that the Chase format wasn’t researched because it only took two years before NASCAR had to tweak it before the start of the 2007 season.

NASCAR added another two drivers to the field, which some fans called the “Dale Earnhardt Jr and Jeff Gordon rule” because they failed to make the chase in 2005.

The fans then went on to say that NASCAR added the rule to make sure that none of their “superstars” would ever be shut out of the post-regular season festivities.

NASCAR even went a step a further and admitted that there was a flaw when CEO Brian France went public with this statement:

“The adjustments taken put a greater emphasis on winning races. Winning is what this sport is all about. Nobody likes to see drivers content to finish in the top 10. We want our sport, especially during the Chase, to be more about winning.”

This was after many of the drivers had a new-found love, or for a better way to put it, a new strategy to make sure once they were within the top 12 in points that they would stay there until the Chase started after the first 26 races.

It was then that NASCAR fans added a new phrase to the already extensive list of NASCAR lingo known as “points racing.” Now, in the first article, we saw that the chase was only effective in only two of the five years, since it was first instituted back in 2004.

Those years were 2005, when Tony Stewart won his second championship, and 2006, when Jimmie Johnson won his first of the three titles in this decade.

With all the emphasis put on the top 12 once the chase starts, is it fair to just “lock out” the other 27 drivers and basically not worry about them because they were not good enough or peaked at the wrong time?

The reason I say locked out is because now that we are nine races away from the Chase, the announcers are quick to use the term “locked in,” as if the focus of the rest the season only belongs to the elite 12.

Now, don’t get me wrong. After all, the whole idea behind racing in the Sprint Cup Series is to win it all and take home the hardware after a long grueling season. But what about the lower 27 who still have fans that follow them even though they are “locked out” of the chase?

And just how fair is the Chase to the drivers who have excelled once the chase has started, only to be “locked out” from maybe getting a top-10 finish in the points?

Ask Tony Stewart how that might have felt in 2006 when he won three Chase races, and 10^th-place finisher Kyle Busch was barely able to pick up two top-10 and two top-five finishes? However, Stewart was “locked out” of the top 10 before the Chase; consequently, he was not allowed to move up despite his success.

Last season, David Ragan could have easily traded spots with 12^th-place finisher Dale Earnhardt Jr., since Earnhardt went on a skid once the chase started, but because he was “locked in,” he couldn’t drop any lower then 12^th.

These are just a couple of examples showing how unfair the chase can be. Is that anyway to reward our drivers who fight hard every week and put their time in to give us fans the best that they have?

How much adrenaline is sucked out of these drivers once the chase starts, knowing that all they are racing for is first-place trophy without being able to advance past the No. 13 spot?

Sure a win is a win, but in the past, that win also accounted for more than just the trophy because it also gave the driver hope that he could salvage a bad season while, at the same time, pleasing a sponsor that was maybe on the brink of pulling away from the team and hooking up with a driver who is within the top 12.

Now looking at the way the chase is shaping up so far this season, realistically speaking, any driver that is behind Brian Vickers at this point has no chance of getting into the Chase.

Now, with that being said, how much of a chance does Marcos Ambrose have being 251 points out, while sitting in the 18^th spot? Or for that matter any driver that is even further back, since the only driver who has ever made up a big deficit was Matt Kenseth in 2005.

Matt was able to come from 218 points out of the 10^th spot and get himself into the chase to eventually walk away with a very impressive 7^th-place finish.

And once again, as in years past, the Chase will be without a couple of NASCAR’s big-name drivers such as RCR’s star driver Kevin Harvick. This will be the third season that Harvick will miss the chase, which also includes 2004 and 2005.

NASCAR’s golden boy Dale Earnhardt Jr., who also missed the Chase with Harvick back in 2005, will most likely also be excluded from the 2009 season’s Chase for the Sprint Cup Championship, since points are not that easy to come by.

Each year, as the teams get a better handle on the C.O.T., making the Chase will become more difficult, and the points race will become tighter and hopefully more exciting in the years to come.

The chase is what it is, and even though many have expressed their strong beliefs that it is still has its flaws, all that the fans can do is go along for the ride and accept it for what it is.

The formula that NASCAR has put into place in order to make the postseason more exciting has instead done the opposite and kept the top 12 “locked into” their own special world and kept the other 27 “locked out.”