The 48 Team And The Art Of Going In Circles

The time Rev' Jim has to be on line is still very rare, but we can't let this NASCAR season end without a word or two.

At the time of this writing, it looks like Jimmie Johnson and the 48 team once again have the Cup Championship sewn up. Unless, of course, the driver or the team make a serious mistake during Sunday's season closer at Homestead. That, as most racing fans know, is not likely to happen.

"How," one might ask, "Can one driver be so dominant over the others that he wins the championship four consecutive seasons?"

Now, to be fair, the one who might ask that question would be one who is not familiar with NASCAR racing. In fact, the one who asked us that question is of the opinion that NASCAR racing is all about mashing the pedal and turning left. That would be the same as saying football is all about men standing in a field and knocking each other down, baseball is about standing around and adjusting hats and belts, or hockey is about skating in circles.

We might explain that, first of all, Jimmie Johnson and his team are not dominant in their sport in the same sense as teams such as the Dallas Cowboys, the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Miami Dolphins, the Celtics, the Lakers, the Yankees, or the Bruins have been dominant in their respective sports. For example, our favorite driver, Tony Stewart, led the points for most of the regular season, a feat of which we, and the 14 team, have a right to be very proud, considering that this was Stewart's first season with a team that was entirely new to him. If they had been able to maintain the level of competition they showed in April through August for the rest of the season, Chase or not, they could have had the Championship sewn up at this point, rather than Johnson.

We must note here, that it would be easy to blame it on NASCAR's Chase points format, but that is how the championship is determined. Every team in the Sprint Cup Series bases its strategy and agenda for the season on that format. It is the same for each team. Even if there wasn't a Chase Championship format, the teams would still calculate their chances for the championship according to the points system. So, in the Zen of it all, the points format doesn't really make a difference.

They weren't able to maintain that level of competition, and that's the way the proverbial cookie crumbles like a mashed right rear fender. The 48 team, on the other hand, has been able to stay at the same level throughout the entire season, and then even step up their performance in the final stretch, when performance matters most. And this is where we try to explain that NASCAR, like the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA, is a team sport.

Of course, at the association of "team" and "NASCAR," a question mark visibly appears over the head of the person who is grilling us. "What," he asks, "does a team have to do with it?"

So, we explain that many races are won in the pits, and the pit crew has to be fit, physically and mentally, in order to provide a pit stop that is a "game breaker." The crew chief has to be able to make decisions that affect the performance of the team, the driver, and the car. Most of the time, the decisions are of the split second variety. Making decisions as to air pressure, wedge, and track bar adjustments take a knowledge of what the driver likes in the handling of his car, along with the knowledge of the time such adjustments would take in relationship to track position among the other teams in the field.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, Chad Knaus, Johnson's Crew Chief, is NASCAR's equivalent of the internet's UberGeek. We never hear anything about his personal life, so we have to assume that everything Knaus does in his life has to do with making cars go faster. He lives, breathes, and eats racing. His first thoughts in the morning, and his final thoughts in the evening have to do with making a car go fast. Tighty whities or boxers? He probably wears speedos. (Note, if the reader chooses to dwell on that image, the author of this blog can not be held responsible for loss of sight in the mind's eye).

Knaus probably doesn't have a stove, oven, or a crock pot. Everything he eats is probably pre-prepared, as in fast food, or microwaved. Our point is that Knaus probably doesn't do anything that doesn't have to do with going fast. It is not unlikely that he has even trained his pit crew on how far out to pull a dented fender to make the aerodynamics of the car better than it was before the fender was dented.

"But," asks the person who is grilling us, "what does that have to do with one driver being so dominant?"

We sigh, not wishing to rehash what we just explained and press onward.

The crew chief is very important, but so is the chemistry between the crew chief and the driver. Jimmie Johnson has had only Knaus as his crew chief his entire Cup career. Granted, while Knaus was under suspension for the first part of last year, Darian Grubb--now Tony Stewart's crew chief--took the reins, but it was still the House of Knaus, and the team carried on as if it was still Chad on the pit box, sort of like automatic pilot. They did what they were trained to do, and continued the success of Johnson's team.

Chemistry between the driver and the crew chief means that there has to be communication that makes what the driver wants and what the driver gets identical. The 48 team definitely has that chemistry.

This is not to take away from Johnson's skills as a driver. The driver has to be precise, being able to put his car where he wants it in his line before another car takes that line. Beating another driver around the track means beating that driver in the turns--perhaps by out braking or out maneuvering the other car--and being quicker in reflexes, which also ties in to avoiding wrecks and contact, or other things that could increase the lap time unfavorably. Johnson is very good at that--the car is magic in his hands.

We can't say that Johnson is the best driver of all time. We can't even say he is absolutely the best out there, although he is one of the best. There are several drivers--the twelve who made the championship chase cut and a handful of others who didn't--who can always be considered to be championship contenders in any given year. The difference goes back to the team's performance, but it also means that a driver has to be good at every track. Each track on which the Cup series races is different in characteristics and dynamics, no matter how much alike they might look. Johnson understands this, and is equally good at finding his groove at all of them. This is how he takes advantage of having one of the best teams in NASCAR, and is what makes the 48 team a perennial champion.

The real question that should be asked is, "why watch the race if the championship is already in the bag?"

The answer is simple if you are a race fan. It is a race. We might be hoping that something similar to what befell the 48 team at Texas happens, and that Mark Martin leads the most laps and wins the race. But the main reason is we want to see if our favorite driver, no matter who it is, wins the race. That is why we watch any race. A victory by our favorite driver is as good as any old championship, as far as we are concerned. Or we could be watching it as witnesses to history in the making.

"But what does this have to do with mashing the gas pedal and driving in in circles?"

At this point, we answer, "I have no idea. How about them Broncos?"

What if the Championship were determined by race wins?

What if NASCAR's schedule and Cup Championship consisted of thirty-six races where winning the race is the only way to gain Championship points? This suggestion has been discussed on the Internet since the season began this year, and has been taken up by some on-line journalists, such as ESPN.com's Terry Blount. The idea is that if winning was all that counted, the racing would be more intense, and there would be no reason to hang back to protect points standings.

But would the racing be better? How many teams that are presently participating at the Cup level afford to participate in an entire season of "Checkers or Wreckers?" Who would want to be in the lead on the last lap with a pack of hungry racers on his rear bumper? More importantly, how often would the winner of the race be determined by a penalty based on a judgement call by a race official?

The problem of teams entering just for the prize money would not be solved, unless the purse was "winner take all." If that were the case, there would be few teams willing to participate. The number of regulars in the field would likely shrink from the thirty-nine Cup regulars we have now, to twenty or fewer. The teams that are underfunded now, relative to "the big four," would be even more underfunded, and there would be no reason for them to compete if they don't have the equipment to win.

In NASCAR, part of the challenge to the driver in any race is in negotiating lapped traffic, and, with a field of twenty or so, the lapped traffic would be sparse, if not absent. The purse in a checkers or wreckers type race would have to be disbursed pretty much the same as it is now, if there was to be a full field.

There would be no guarantee of better racing in a checkers or wreckers race. In a 334 lap race, the first 270 laps would be the same chess game it is now, with the drivers and teams testing their cars, saving their engines and brakes, and finding the best set up for the final sprint to the finish. There would be no point in going all out in the early part of the race, and risking a blown engine, worn out brakes, or a broken gear box. We would likely see one car pulling an eight to ten second lead for most of the early race while the other teams half-heartedly battle for position, hoping for a caution, or maybe hoping that a team mate, with nothing to lose, will take out the leader while racing to stay on the lead lap. With no points at stake, lapped traffic would have no reason to continue in the race as the laps wind down, unless there is the chance that all the cars on the lead lap will wreck, of course.

That is one reason why a checkers or wreckers series would be more expensive for participants than it is now. Repairing a NASCAR racing car after a wreck is very expensive, and one thing an all or nothing situation will produce is plenty of wrecks. It would be safe to say that we would see plenty of situations in the final laps as we did at this year's All Star Challenge--where, with eight laps to go, Ryan Newman, Kyle Busch, and Jeff Gordon all went into a turn three abreast, and none came out with a car capable of winning the race. All three of them went into that turn with nothing to lose, and everything to gain. It was exciting, for sure, but it really wasn't great racing. It was, however, great and expensive demolition derby.

The leader with five laps to go would be very lucky to be the winner of the race, unless he was so far ahead of the field that nobody could reach him. That would be unlikely, as the cautions and restarts would be frequent, as drivers back in the field give it their all to get into a position where they, theoretically, at least, could catch the leader. That leader would have a big target on his rear bumper, and no driver will have second thoughts about using the chrome horn to get him loose, or move him up the track a little, when winning is all that matters. Of course, there is always the chance that the first car to cross the finish line will be black flagged for rough driving.

So where is the fine line between a legitimate bump and run and a bump and dump that earns a black flag? Any driver will tell the press and the race officials, "I didn't mean to wreck him," after he makes contact and takes the lead. When the winner of the race is determined by a judgement call by a race official, that is not better racing. If no contact at all is allowed, then we are back to the follow-the-leader type race that so many race fans claim to find "boring."

Another situation that would come out of a checkers or wreckers series would be that many top drivers would be absent from some of the races. In 1974, David Pearson only ran in nineteen of the thirty races, and finished the season third in points. He participated only in races where he knew he would have a good chance to win. We would see the same thing in a checkers or wreckers championship. Why risk a season or career ending injury at a track where the driver has had no success, when that driver knows he could win races at tracks at which he has excelled in the past? A driver who has a two or three race lead early in the season would be likely to skip a few races during the remainder of the season, racing only at those tracks where he feels he has a good chance of winning.

Aside from that, there is the possibility that the championship could be determined with several races left on the schedule. There would be no need for the champion who is six races ahead of everyone else to finish the season with five races to go. The rest of the field would be racing for a top ten position in the final standings, and drivers and teams who have no wins would only be there to act as blockers for a team mate, perhaps. For most race fans, the novelty of a demolition derby wore off by the time we graduated from high school, so, instead of an exciting finish to a season, we would likely see a big fizzle.

As with most of these bright ideas that get thrown around in cyberspace, it would be unlikely that such a series would be a success. In forums, blogs, and sports network sites, fans and journalists bemoaned the fact that Rockingham no longer had racing, but when ARCA brought a race to Rockingham, only about three thousand fans showed up initially, and then only 300 fans showed up for the second ARCA race there. And then there are the calls for NASCAR to make the Nationwide Series a replication of the ARCA Series, by banning Cup drivers from racing in that series, and re-defining the Nationwide Series as a ladder series for novice drivers only. We could see that as being a huge success among race fans.....yeah, right!

NASCAR Cup racing is a championship series that requires a test of both drivers and teams, in races of marathon proportion. In other words, the championship not only depends on a driver's skill, but on the skills of the mechanics, engineers, and pit crews on the team. Winning a race is not the only measure of these skills, though it is important. Winning could be, as Terry Blount suggests, be made more important by adding more points to the race winner's score, rather than creating an all or nothing competition. It might make for better competition if the award for winning were raised to 200 points, while keeping the remainder of the points awards the same as they are now. In addition, NASCAR could add an extra ten bonus points to the Chase standings, beyond the bonus points that are already in place for each regular season win. This would make it more difficult to protect points by settling for a top ten finish,and should create a more aggressive form of racing among the top teams. But it would still award consistency to a point, and still give an opportunity for the championship to be determined at the very end of the season. Most importantly, we would still see racing, rather than a series of wreckfests. If we want to see a wreckfest, we can always go to the demolition derby at our local track.

They built it, but what will make them come?

Tony Stewart would have made a great "Hancock." We could see Jeff Gordon playing "Spiderman," in a sequel featuring the former teenage superhero as a grown man. Greg Biffle could be interesting in the lead role of the next "Bourne" movie. Kasey Kahne could work on his British accent and be the next James Bond. Mark Martin would make a great "Popeye" Boyle in a "French Connection" revival. Carl Edwards would be a natural as Eddie Haskel in a feature length "Leave It To Beaver" reincarnation.

What the heck are we talking about? We're just trying to help ISC/NASCAR come up with ways to make Auto Club Speedway, in Fontana, California, more appealing to the locals in that part of the state. If some of the stars of NASCAR became movie stars as well, they just might be able to draw the Hollywood crowd to the track.

There are true NASCAR fans in Southern California. to be sure, but the heat of Labor Day in that part of the country, coupled with the reputation of the races there being "boring," results in many of them foregoing the opportunity to see a live race. Part of that will be remedied next year, when the race moves to later in the Fall, and the temperatures will be more tolerable. But, so far in its ten year history, the track has not been conducive to the type of racing many NASCAR fans want to see.

In its current spot on the schedule, not only is it on a day that many consider too hot even for a race, but it seems anti-climatic after Bristol and before the regular season finale at Richmond. Between all that beatin' and bangin', a set-up, tire, and fuel strategy race just doesn't seem appropriate.

Fox Sports'Lee Spencer doesn't think the speedway deserves a slot in the Chase for the Championship, and she does make a point in her argument. But ISC/NASCAR is stubborn, and they will not give up a date for a track that was part of their plan to make NASCAR a mainstream sport. That organization does not always make wise decisions, but it is a multi-million dollar corporation, so they must be doing something right.

Being part of the Chase could help. It will still be anti-climatic, but it will also offer a challenge in the Championship format that does not currently exist. Just being part of the playoffs may draw more fans to the track.

But the purpose of building the track formerly known as California Speedway was to draw new fans to the sport, and if NASCAR wants to do that, they will have to think much further out of the box than they are currently. Being pro-active in Hollywood by producing movies featuring drivers and other personalities as stars may not be that far fetched.