Would awarding 300 points to the winner of the Daytona 500 be too much?

Restrictor plate tracks and rain shortened races and fuel mileage races should have a lower to no value at all.

I say for the Daytona 500, Brickyard, and the Coke 600, the winner should get 15 more points than second, all the other races only 10. If they got 300 for one win, then they are guaranteed a top 3 spot probably a championship, unless they do terrible every other race.

I've said for a while that there should be a few double points events in Nascar. It seems to work very well for many of the local short tracks I've attended. Any race with double points always seem to have a bit more excitement and tension attached to it. I'd pick 4 races a year for double points events, possibly changing them from one year to the next.

The Daytona 500 could be unpredictable. After the twin duel races, we will get a bettter theory of who can do what. i does not positioned money on a Hendrick motor vehicle, whether it does not marvel me in any respect the two. i do no longer think of Hendrick would be so dominant this 12 months. it is genuinely a sparkling slate for each and all the communities good now.

there is nothing wrong with the points system.winners get an extra 10 points per win.if they only win one or two races,then so be it.they should not be awarded 300 points and maybe win a championship for one win.consistancy wins championships.top 10's should win championships,not the luck of one win.

Leave points awards the same as they are now, it worked good for a long time.......

thats quite a bit more, i would give it the same as other tracks but the winners do need more than what they get

all race wins should pay the same number of points.

all wins should get 30-50 points more than 2nd.

Yeah, 300 is too much.