Solving the wrong problems

We’re stepping away from the on-track action and analysis today. Instead, let’s focus on the recent rejection of scoring changes that may have seen points-scoring positions extending to at least 12th.

The news itself has been covered extensively so I’m going take a slightly different approach. In that Motorsport.com article I just linked, there is a sentence that says a lot more than the words it contains.

So far, only Sauber has failed to score points this season, making the reasoning for expanding the points system no longer valid.

Changing the scoring system in Formula 1 to provide points farther down the field has been touted as a solution to reward reliability and create more opportunity for points in eras where the top-eight or top-10 are reliably locked down from race to race.

What’s the problem with the above quote?

Changes to scoring were clearly being considered only as a solution to a current predicament, not as something that could generally improve the sport. Why else would an idea be tossed in the trash because of a change short-term context?

I rarely adhere to a “change is bad” philosophy. It’s important to have an open mind in sports and in life. But making an adjustment like this must be approved or rejected because it is better for the sport long-term, not as a quick fix because of a temporary performance spread on the grid.

It’s the same principle as when there was discussion that Red Bull dominance was bad for the sport and ideas to hamstring them kept being floated. While I made plenty of jokes about the concept (especially as a Mercedes fan), I was always firmly against actually doing anything about it. The manufacturing of close racing and competitive championships has to be done in writing the regulations, not in ad-hoc solutions presented to affect the short-term.

A final note of nuance: I’m not saying “don’t change the scoring.”

But *if* you want to change the scoring, a good solution will apply whether the field is close together or far apart - otherwise it’s not a good solution at all.