Should Last Place Score a Point?

I agree that not everyone deserves a trophy so why not cut the points off at 11th like how outdoors only awarded half the field with points then? Or should 12-22 get points? Why isn’t that viewed as we’re just handing out points for the fuck of it?
 

I don’t really see this as an “everyone gets a trophy” argument considering they just decided to not award last place in the main event with a point.

I'm thinking negative 1 point for 22nd

id love to see this, as it would make every time there on the track count. and it would tighten up the point races

100% on them scoring a single point for last. 
 

And while they are at it restructure the National points system and  award points to the entire field. What is the motivation for battling with someone over 32nd place the way it is now? Any extra $2 in purse money? 

I don't care how they structure it, but anyone who qualifies for a sx main event, or National should get points. Actually they deserve points.

This. 20 rider mains were clearly better before the change in 2014.

1. Less first turn and first lap pileups.

2. Fewer lappers. Take the two slowest riders off the track - these are the riders getting lapped multiple times. Lappers got even worse when they went to longer races in 2017.

3. Track doesn't deteriorate as much. 9% less rider-laps.

What do we miss, the battle for 21st place?

It's funny to me how many fans are obsessed with linear points formats in motorsports, while simultaneously hating how championships are too dependent on consistency. You can’t have one without the other. I love watching old Formula 1 races where points only paid out to the top 6 or 8 drivers. You could have the occasional DNF and not have to worry about your championship being ruined, and so drivers were more willing to push the limit. Afterall, we watch racing to see drivers/riders give it their all, not to watch them play to safe in 5th to manage a championship.

Now, I understand that traditionally American Supercross and Motocross have paid out to the top 20, and I'm ok with extending that to 21st and 22nd in a main, but what was wrong with the original format of paying 20 though 22 a single point? Do we really need to make the distinction between finishing last and next-to-last?

Have to admit, I like closing the gap from 3-4 down to 1 point and running everything below that at 1 point higher so that 22nd gets a point.

You make the main, you should have something in the standings to show for it...

Why does 21st even score points? For me keep it as outdoors top 20 score points. *shrug*

Some made the point everyone making the main for a supercross main should get points.
Should everyone making the 40 in outdoors make a point too? I just dont get why people bother tbh, change both then.

Half the field in SX gets points. 

There are 22 gates in SX.

40 riders make the night show, and 22 make the main events and score points. 

There are 40 gates outdoors, and 20 riders score points. 

I think if you make the main you should have something to show for it.

100% agree. If you race your way into the spot in the main event you should get rewarded with at least 1 point. 

Now think playoffs. 1 point can mean whether or not he gets to race in the playoffs.

Championships are won on your worst days - RC

I’m in the minority here, getting into a main is already a reward and I’m tired of seeing guys just rolling around like a trail rider during mains. Pay points to the top 20 only, black flag riders who go 2 laps down and get rid of the steel starting grates. And do something substantial about course cutting, I’m sick of seeing riders bypassing entire sections. Now get off my lawn!

Its called points per moto bro. You know that. 25-20=45, 20-25=45, 22-22=44. If you can't add, finish 1-1...

Your race doesn't really merit any points, but you qualified so you should get at least one, to differentiate you from those that couldn't even make the main. 

What about the riders who are fast enough to make the heats and LCQ, but not the main.  Surely they deserve some points to differentiate them from those that didn't make the night show at all.  I propose you get one point for making the night show, one for making the main then award points to the top 15 in the main.  25, 20, 16, 13, 11, 10, 9, 8, ...1.

I'll leave it up to the reader to separate the sarcasm from the real post.  Honestly, I not sure where the line is exactly...

Absolutely...YES!  So you bust your ass to make the main and then get nothing more than anyone that didn't make it did????  I don't know who thought this was OK but they're the R word. 

This is it. If you want to give 22nd place a point, give everyone else a point also. Because if you're "giving" a point for making the main, everyone "made the main". WTH? So everyone that made the main gets a "made the main point"? A guy that gets last place is probably nowhere near a championship run anyway so why is this an issue? They are still getting the marketing exposure. If it's an issue, go back to 20 rider main. Ask last place rider if they'd rather ride in the main and get ZERO points, or not ride in the main at all. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they'd rather ride in the main for zero points then just go home after the LCQ.

TM

Yes, I think it's valid to distinguish between 21st and 22nd, especially since riders such as they could use the points to earn national numbers, thus enhancing their "brand" and sponsorship opportunities. If not, why bother tracking their finishes and awarding them any purse money? Why allow 21 and 22 into the main at all? 

I'm totally fine with not awarding points for heats and LCQs (makes more sense, in fact,) but there should be points paid for every main event qualifier. 

whoa, hold up, LCQ worth more than a heat race?

more fun with different points structure.

If heat races paid points, the supercross total points available and mx total points available would be pretty similar.

It would never fly, and I wouldnt be a fan of it, just an interesting note

I'm not sure your last sentence is 100% true since the Pulp LCQ race came along.  They make some big bucks in that race and it's definitely something that is on their mind.

0 points in the main or 5th in the LCQ so you can race for big money in the Pulp race....it'd be interesting to see guys answer that question honestly.

Why is it a problem for last place to not get a point when the bottom half outdoors has never gotten one?

Just go back to 20 rider mains? Is that what the privateers would prefer? It’d help the track not break down as much.  

it depends on how you look at it. you could see 1 person didnt get points, or you could say 18 riders didnt get points (night show, didnt make the main), which would be similar to outdoors.

So if I'm reading this right, you're thinking that if a rider qualified for the main, they would rather actually not race the main because they won't get a point? If that's the case, they have the option right now to sit out the main. If that's the case, then the follow up question is, why do they line up at the start gate right now?

TM

Doesn’t missing the main by getting 5th in the LCQ get a $1000 rockymountain check ?

Just 1 point can put a rider into next years 1 - 99 number group so yes it does make a difference.

I'm thinking that if you gave them the option of racing the Main and getting 0 points or of getting 5th in the LCQ and qualifying for the Pulp race to win big money, a lot of them would rather be in the Pulp Race for money than the Main for 0 points.

Why? F1 only pays points to 10th out of 20 cars. 

Not unless they cut the main event down to 10-12 riders.  Usually the last 10 riders on the track are just a roadblock and shouldn't even be on the track with the top guys.