This whole flap over Seahawks WR Golden Tate’s post on Twitter saying that NASCAR drivers are not athletes is waaay overblown.

That’s because it is so obvious that those drivers are not athletes.  That doesn’t mean that those drivers do not possess skills that make them the best drivers in the world.  It just means, well, that they do not possess any athletic ability.

I think a lot of sports fans confuse athletic ability and skill.

I define “athlete” as one who possess God-given ability to run faster, jump higher, and overpower other participants via sheer strength.  Examples of such players are in football, basketball, baseball, hockey, lacrosse, tennis – and yes, even soccer.

I’m sorry, but I do not see NASCAR drivers being physically imposing enough to do well in the aforementioned sports.  Aside from Carl Edwards and Jimmy Johnson, none of the drivers really look the part.

I mean, can you see pudgy-ass Tony Stewart outrun LeBron James and hitting a jump shot?  Can you see little-ass Kyle Busch going over the middle in an NFL game to catch a pass and make yards after the catch?  Can you see my favorite driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. racking up goals on a hockey rink?

Now as for skill, those drivers definitely have that and then some.  I mean, it takes a special kind of skill (and mindset) to go over 160 mph in a 110-degree plus car going by drivers driving the same speed for 4 hours.  Plus, there is some strategy involved – when to change tires, gas up.

But as I said earlier, do not confuse athletic ability and skill.  It’s the same argument I’d make for golfers.  It takes an enormous amount of skill to drive and place balls on a golf course, and greater skill to putt on the green.  Again, I cannot picture fat-ass John Daly lighting it up on a basketball court, football field, or a baseball diamond.  Ditto for Phil Mickelson and Anthony Kim.

The only thing I wish Tate would do is stick by this comments instead of going the P.C. route and backtracking.  After Johnson challenged him to come to the track, Tate should have challenged his, Stewart’s and other drivers’ asses to the gridiron.

Tate would have won that argument.

A lot of hoopla has been made concerning NASCAR’s points system.

Here are the announced scoring changes:

• Drivers will be awarded 43 points for first place, 42 for second place and one point less for every following position down to last place.
• The winner will receive three bonus points.
• One bonus point will be awarded for leading a lap, as well as for leading the most laps.
• The winner would receive a minimum of 47 points and a maximum of 48. Second would receive a minimum of 42 points and a maximum of 44.

(You can read more about them here: http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/nascar/cup/news/story?id=6062289)

While I laud NASCAR for attempting to add a bit of common sense to its scoring system, which is a step up from what it was before (http://www.nascar.com/news/features/points.system/index.html), it still seems a bit convoluted.  What is the rationale of having bonus points?  I mean, so what if a driver led a lap or two.  Isn’t that what a driver is paid to do?

Here is how I would change the scoring system:

• I would award 300 points to the winner, followed by 200 for second place and 100 points for third.
• In an act of mercy, I would award 50 points to whomever finishes 4th, then give the subsequent drivers one less point.
• There would be NO BONUS POINTS for leading laps or who led the most laps — in fact, no bonus points PERIOD.

This scoring system would heavily favor the winners, as ANY point system should.  That way, there would not be any controversy of Matt Kenseth winning the Sprint Cup in a year where he WON ONE RACE.

Oh, one more thing: change the “Chase for the Cup” from the top 12 to the top 10 drivers.  Make your playoffs meaningful NASCAR!!!