Bernie Ecclestone’s musings have a habit of becoming law in a split-second, so you tend to take him seriously when he says something like this:
To me, it should be all about winning. The driver who wins the most races in the season should be the world champion. It’s as simple as that. Second places should only come into the reckoning if both drivers win the same amount of races.
I agree with him wholeheartedly – and here’s why.
The case in favour is exactly as simple as Ecclestone states. No one is interested in coming second – winning is all that matters. Surely we all want to see every driver pushing for victory, rather than settling back and accepting a ‘safe’ second place?
Rather than fiddling about with the points system to achieve this, championship points should be ditched entirely, and the championship given to the driver with the most wins. Then, as Ecclestone says, “Second places only come into the reckoning if both drivers win the same amount of races.”
I know a lot of people are unconvinced about this. A lot of people have complained that it doesn’t punish failure to finish.
But I’m entirely in favour of dropping championship points. Awarding the championship to the driver who has the ‘most best finishes’ is exactly the kind of efficient logic that the F1 rule book lacks in almost every respect.
F1 forums across the net regularly buzz with discussions about what the best points system would be. I say the best system is no system at all – give the championship to the driver with the most wins.
- The argument against championship points (III)
- Prizes for places, not points
- Places not points revisited
- Autosport.com – Points system not working, says Ecclestone (external)