For a look at how this works, see here.
It's been nearly a month since my last set of driver rankings, but with only one covered series running at this moment it's not quite ready for primetime. All that will change next weekend, since Formula One begins its season and IndyCar the next. With the way the rankings have appeared in 2008, this weekend is likely the last with a NASCAR driver in the top spot.And that driver in the top spot? This weeks race winner, Kyle Busch. Shrub takes over the #1 spot from older bro Kurt who was #1 after the last race. Another interesting trend has emerged from the rankings: the driver who won the race that weekend has been #1 every weekend: Kenseth was obviously #1 after Daytona and retained after Fontana, Kyle took over after Las Vegas, then Kurt at Atlanta. #1 will again go to the most recent winner, although the Australian GP winner instead.Top 25 (all NASCAR guys since nobody else has started)
Biggest Gainer of the Week: With his first good race of '09, Ryan Newman moved from 30th to 21st this week. Mark Martin moved up 7 thanks to his second straight pole.
...Although not completely. The FIA's World Motor Sport Council decided to award the Formula One championship based on the number of wins a driver gets, irregardless of the number of points he earns thoughout the season. Points would only matter if the drivers are tied, but do matter for all positions but the World Champion
It's not the entireity of Monsieur Ecclestone's stupid medals concept, but has the same gist. I think it's a rather unnecessary concept that could have been remedied in a better fashion - changing the points and widening the gap between P1 and P2.
The modern era of Formula One has been so slanted towards one or two power teams that the rule would rarely be an issue. But what if this year is different? Say Kovalainen wins four races but performs poorly otherwise (wholly possible if McLaren is just sandbagging it so far), meanwhile the Ferrari guys and Hamilton each get three wins and dominate the podium? It would be a farce.
I have looked back every Formula One season since the beginning to see how the champs would have differed under this system. Of the 58 seasons so far, 10 have had the World Champion not be the driver win the title.
- 1958: Stirling Moss' 4 victories gives him the edge over Mike Hawthorn to be the first British F1 champ.
- 1964: Jim Clark wins back to back titles (3 wins to John Surtees' 2)
- 1967: Clark wins title #4 (4 wins) instead of Denny Hulme (2 wins)
- 1977: Mario Andretti goes into his real life title season as defending champ, besting Niki Lauda 4 wins to three.
- 1982: No one wins more than two times, with Keke Rosberg winning just once. Didier Peroni edges John Watson for the title on third place finishes (tied with points and second places).
- 1983: Alain Prost takes Nelson Piquet's title (4-3)
- 1986: Prost's title is taken from him by Nigel Mansell (5-4)
- 1987: Mansell wins back to back (5 to Piquet's 3)
- 1989: Senna's six wins beat Prost's four.
- 2008: Massa doesn't need Glock to hold off Hamilton this time.
Looking back at history, this idea is an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to a situation that outside of the 1980s, is an incredibly rare occurence.
