"Your job is to argue he (Kezelowski) shouldn't be the favorite" is the very first line of the TD, and then in Outlaw's 3rd argument it changed to "The purpose of this TD was to argue about which driver SHOULD be favored to win the Chase". Sorry man, can't move the goalposts in the final argument. Junkyard Joe taking the field against Kez was a legitimate stance.

The Wolfe/Kez combo may be perhaps the most underrated crew chief/driver team in Nascar, but JJ/Knaus are the best. I wont comment any further since the TD is still in progress.

In my comment, I was solely addressing right's using the non-existence of a playoff as a valid point. You're right that the crew chief is more or less the direct equivalent of a coach in the NFL. If you took the NFL owner and also gave him the duties of the GM of the team, then that would be the Nascar equivalent of an owner. I still haven't voted left or right or decided which argument is better.

You're right, but you have to admit there's certain times when you give some space, and certain times you don't. It's an unwritten rule, or understanding between drivers, or whatever. You see it all the time during races, and you'll hear the announcers point out that a driver gave him some space, or a driver will say post-interview that he gave another driver space. None of them HAVE to at any time, but you do it to get along and have some courtesy towards your fellow drivers. And if you'll look at the post-race interview in Atlanta, Carl again said that Brad's actions weren't as malicious as he thought. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that he'd been wrecked by Brad 3 times already (at varying levels of guilt/innocence), and so Carl responded.

It's like people who drive the exact speed limit in the left hand lane on the interstate and refuse to let normal traffic by. Technically, they're in the right, but they're still jackasses. And they're going to end up having to put up with a lot of horn blowing, obscene gestures, tailgaiting, and being cut off. Brad K. was being a jackass at the beginning of his career, and he ended up paying for it. It wasn't just Carl that he had a problem with; it was many other drivers as well.

Ahmad...I don't agree with ANY of my points in that comment. None. Just as I just don't agree with your usage of the lack of a playoff system in Nascar at the time. Championships were determined by a points process then, and that's what you aim for. So saying that it didn't have a playoff system at the time is meaningless (just as it's meaningless for me to suggest that a Nascar team doesn't have the benefit of a home field advantage.) The playoff system/wildcard team setup actually changed between the times when Gibbs won his Superbowls, so does that make any of them less valid to this throwdown??

I'm not saying which side has proven their point more (and I haven't voted either way yet); I'm just saying you need to find something else to convince me besides the lack of playoffs because it's irrelevant.

What the hell does Nascar not having a playoff (at the time) have to do with any of this? Gibbs won titles under the rules for declaring a champion. Gibbs' Redskins played under different championship formats due to conference changes and differences in wild card teams..so what's the difference?

But if that's considered a valid point, then let's try this.....Gibbs racing, during the title runs, had to face every single opponent in the league at the exact same time. The Redskins only had to face 1 team at a time, while Gibbs's team had to face 40 other drivers at the same time....every single week. Oh..and the Redskins had home field advantage for half their games, while Gibbs racing never had that benefit.

Or maybe let's just say none of those points (especially the fact that Nascar didn't have a playoff) are relevant to the throwdown.

It's an interesting video for sure. First, you've got Talladega which Carl said Brad was completely not at fault. There was no retaliation.

Then you have Memphis where Brad's at fault. Brad was already notoriously building himself a reputation for not caring or letting up. In fact, if you go to 2:15 in the video you provided, the announcers say that it's the 3rd time THAT DAY that Brad had been involved in contact with someone and that there were going to be people wanting answers.

Then you have Atlanta. Carl still owes Brad one. Carl expected Brad to give him some room early in the race as other drivers typically would do, but again, Brad doesn't care and there are 2 cars wrecked. So add that to the previous incident and you have 2 times Carl has been the victim of Brad, so Carl decides to collect later in the race. It's even at this point.

Then at Gateway, Brad purposely bumps Carl out of the way (again, drawing first blood in the race). Carl turns Brad coming to the finish line. Nascar puts BOTH of them on probation (meaning that St. Bradley hasn't been the little innocent choir boy you've implied).

Oh..and then we get to see Brad's dumb-A father get on the microphone, and it all makes sense how Brad turned out like he is.

Carl didn't make the next move after Talladega. There was no retaliation for that event. And Brad wrecked Carl first in the race at Atlanta. Carl was down 150 laps because Brad knocked him (and Logano at the same time) out of the race. Carl came back onto the track and deliberately took out Brad. He didn't intend to flip him, but he wanted to retaliate in the same race where the original offense occurred.

That article was poorly written. It was clearly overly slanted against Carl. It ignored a lot of the overaggressive moves and incidents Brad K. had done. If you'll go back to the post-race Talladega interviews (near the beginning of when they started having problems), Carl blamed 2 parties for the Talladega wreck. He blamed himself for not realizing Brad had gotten his car up as far as it was and then blamed Nascar for creating a situation for that to occur. He then congratulated Brad and said that he'd done a good job. When it comes to the Brad K./Carl feud, I don't hold one party greatly at fault over the other. They were both party to it.

The only problem I've really had with Carl was when he sort of man-handled Kenseth during a post-race interview and then fake swung at him. That was a punk move.

Well considering the Nascar HOF has only been around for 3 years, I'm not sure you can even mention it. Gibbs will make it in someday as an owner someday. And an owner in Nascar is not the same as an owner in any other major sport. The owner is definitely more hands-on in Nascar, and sometimes literally, hands-on. Tony Stewart is part owner of the team he drives for. Additionally, there are certain owners that are definitely more desirable to work for. If you create a good environment on your team, the better drivers are going to want to come to you when their contract is up.

I didn't want to mention anything while the TD was going, but since you brought this up in the comments, I'll go ahead and say something. My interpretation of the TD is that Outlaw is saying Gibb's legacy is bigger in Nascar than his legacy in the NFL. It's not a comparison of what's more popular (NFL obviously), but which pond he's a bigger fish in.

Want me to address your ridiculous analogy that supposedly supports your point? Actually I already did, but I'll do it from a different angle this time. Equipment plays a role in pretty much every sport. If an NFL player wore absolute bottom of the line equipment that offered little protection, do you think he'd be playing to his full potential by the end of the game, let alone the end of the season? No. Would an out of shape guy racing an off-the-rack Huffy bike be in the running for the Tour de France after getting in perfect shape? No, but he'd sure as hell have a lot better times.

Like I'd said, you don't want to give auto-racing credit for whatever personal reasons you have. It's cool though, you're entitled to an opinion no matter how wrong it may be.

With the standards you just set there, you've eliminated a good number of offensive and defensive linemen in the NFL as athletes.

Wrong. The physical demands inside the car are far greater than you want to admit. A driver who is in great shape will drive much better than he would if he were just average. Drivers can lose over 10 pounds in a single race, have suffered 3rd degree burns from the pedals, and have to perform in these conditions for hours at a time. The ones with the best endurance will be able to perform at higher levels later in the race when it counts the most.

And the current Nascar Champion Tony Stewart you say? It's funny you should mention him because this year he happened to be in much better shape now then he's been in a long time.

Agreed. That's like Himmler and Goebbels signing with an all-rabbi basketball team.

Cal Ripken? Dale Murphy?

Well I qualified my statement saying that he is to Nascar what the other 2 were to their sports. Compared to the other athletes picked in this particular throwdown, the pick is an excellent one. And his fanbase will seriously buy/support anything that he endroses. Dale Jr. could endorse jerry curl or afro sheen, and it would fly off the Piggly Wiggly shelves in even the whitest, most redneck regions of the country.

I didn't want to comment before right posted, but I wasn't sure if you were saying who is the best spokesperson/endorser (as in who actually performs the best in commercials, print, etc.) or who had the widest following/mass appeal. Dale Jr. isn't bad in his commercials, but he's nothing special as far as his actual performance (both on track and in the commercials). His massive appeal/fan base though make him an easy choice. Dale Jr. is to Nascar is what Jordan was to the NBA and what Tiger was to golf (in his better days). His rabid, loyal fanbase will snatch up products endorsed by Jr. in a heartbeat. And I've seen more than one personal car on the roads fully painted/stickered like his old budweiser car.

Paterno was celebrated and loved greatly during his life and paid well for it. At this point though, his legacy and reputation mean nothing to him....he's dead. I don't think it should matter at this point whether he did or didn't do enough to intervene (and for the record, I don't think he did). If forever tarnishing Paterno's reputation gives even just one of Sandusky's victims the slightest bit of solace, satisfaction, or peace of mind then that is what needs to be. They are the ones who are still alive and have to live with the memory of the atrocities committed against them.....atrocities that could have very well been avoided if Paterno had just taken the extra step.

This is where I'll have to disagree. If you take away the single car/independent teams, then Chip Ganassi Racing was close to the bottom of the barrel equipment when Montoya joined. From 2003-2008, CGR cars ran 635 races and only won one time (Montoya's road course win). Hendrick, Joe Gibbs, Roush, Childress, Penske, and Petty all had better teams then Ganassi.

I agree with you, but do you think Montoya could have been capable of "doing well" in Nascar? If Montoya had started his Nascar career with Roush or Hendrick (and therefore had better equipment, better teammates for guidance, etc.), would he be one of the better drivers today?