Talk:NASCAR Rookie of the Year

Sad Shape?
Can someone explain to me why this article was described as being in "sad shape?" I put a lot of work into this, and I don't see how it is in sad shape.


 * I apologize if my comment was in error/mistaste, my description would be that albeit very informational, is somewhat confusing, and lacks narritive. The description is also incorrect (according to ) and is lacking sources. (I have seen both conflicting and confirming lists on the web, and as such, have not done much to correct/confirm, as my historical knowledge is limited.) I don't think that the page needs to be removed, or even completly reworked, but if Featured Article is the standard, this article needs a lot of work.
 * On the other hand, this article has come a long way since July 4th, the date before your first edit (if you are 70.16.56.164), so again, rather than discourage, which was not my intent, Thank you for your hard work. -slowpokeiv 00:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay I gotcha, I'll make these changes and do my best to improve the page. It's a work in progress, but it's something that is somewhow very fascinating to me. Thanks again, and no offense taken. -D-Day

2006 Update
I just want everyone to know that as soon as the season is over, I will take up the duty of updating the history accordingly to the 2005 results. Now my question is, what will go in for the "Current Contendors" section until after the season starts? I have two ideas so far?
 * A list of all the confirmed contendors for ROTY in all three series.
 * A list of potential contendors with a short sentence explaining why or why not they may not go for it this year.

Any other suggestions? --D-Day 21:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My vote goes to option C: removal of said section until the silly season is over. The wikipedia is supposed to be fact, not speculation, but eh, look at 2006 Formula One Season to counteract that, so I dunno... -slowpokeiv 00:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused Slowpoke. Did you want the article closed until 2006? Or just the potential contendors section?--D-Day 11:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, No, just the section. The ROTY article with or without the Contendors section has merit to stand on its own, and the Contendors section has merit to stand during the season, not debating these points. I just don't know if the Contendors section has enough merit during the off/silly season. Sorry for the confusion. -slowpokeiv 23:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I see now. My reasoning for putting up the ROY contendors in the offseason is that there is three confirmed contendors in Nextel Cup.(Reed Sorenson, Martin Truex, David Stremme) But I do see your point as I am not aware of the contendors in Busch or Trucks.--D-Day 10:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

ROTY Summaries
I recently had a brain storm about containing a summary of each season's Rookie of the Year race being placed in an article somewhere. The question is would it go here, or in a season summary.(i.e. 2004 in NASCAR for example) My vote would go to the latter, for space reasons and it having more relevance to the topic. I just wanted some input though. --D-Day 14:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Eligibility??
I know that on the main page it says that drivers that haven't run more than 7 races in a previous season are elligible, but what about drivers that attempted to qualify for more than 7 races, but only made seven or less? --Casey14 31 October 2005
 * That doesn't count. The driver has to start more than seven races in order to lose their eligbility. For example, last year Kyle Busch had six NEXTEL Cup starts, but I believe he missed a couple. But he's still eligible to win the award this year. Hope this helps. --D-Day 21:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank's for clearing that up. I will be deleting Frank Kimmel from the list since he only ran 6 races in 2002, and he never announced himself to be a rookie. Casey14 19:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

same scoring system for Busch etc?
We need to verify whether the rookie points system (and end-of-season evaluation) used in Nextel Cup is also used in Busch, trucks, Modifieds, Busch East, etc. I was able to clarify whether some parts of the article applied to just Cup or other NASCAR series, but I'm not sure about this item. Barno 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

2007 Rookies
Jon Wood, Regan Smith, and David Reutimann are all running for Rookie of the Year in 2007. Brandon Whitt is a possibility if he runs the #72 full time, but that is unconfirmed. Casey14 20:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll add Reutimann, but I'm not sure if Wood and Smith will, since they're running part-time schedules. Unless I see a PR announcing someone'll run for ROTY, I wouldn't add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs)

Boris Said Rookie in 2005?
I came across this while doing the list of NASCAR driver pages, and it seems that Boris ran 9 races that year, which would qualify as his unofficial rookie year, since he is no longer elligible. Casey14 18:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, did I just completely look over that. It seems his name was on the list.  Casey14 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Brandon Whitt in 2007
I don't know how legitimate this is, but from his very inactive message board: "Brandon Whitt To Run For Rookie of Year CJM Racing is supplying a car for Brandon Whitt to compete in the 2007 NEXTEL Cup Series. Whitt has been selected to drive the #72 Chevrolet with tentative sponsorship from Dutch Quality Stone. The former Craftsman Truck Series driver made his Cup debut with the #72 in November at Phoenix. He failed to make the field in the series finale at Homestead. Whitt finished in the top 20 in the 2004 and 2005 Craftsman Truck Series point standings. He will be running for the NASCAR Nextel Cup Rookie of the Year honors as well."

Casey14 23:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jon Wood and Regan Smith
These two drivers should be removed from the rookie of the year candidate list, since as of Darlington they had not declared they were running for rookie of the year. They should be stated under that they are rookies, but not running for the rookie of the year award. Casey14 00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Brandon Whitt #72
According to Whitt's |Whitt's official website, he drove the #72 CJM Racing car this year. However the team left NEXTEL Cup to focus on the Busch Series. I don't understand why his number keeps getting changed to (#??) every time I change it to #72. WildFan48 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's kinda obvious. The team released him, and has moved to the Busch Series with Jason Keller.  Whitt's site hasn't been updated yet. Casey14 03:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the way we've done it in the past when a rookie is released from his team. It takes up less space, and is helpful in case the driver returns to the series in a different ride. --D-Day 10:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't we at least include the car number he drove before he was released, being that we know what car he drove? And it would be given for more of a historical documentation anyway, so that readers know that he did compete in the #72? WildFan48 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That can be found on his driver page, and if it isn't there the page needs updating. Casey14 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Busch Series and DEI
Just wanted to state that #15 DEI team isn't full time, and needs to be removed. I wanted to run this accross before I remove it. Casey14 03:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gosh this shows I'm a scatter brain. This is directed towards the list of NASCAR teams page. Casey14 03:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Fike and Tyler Walker
I believe both of these have either declined from continuing rookie of the year or have been taken out by NASCAR. They are no longer on NASCAR's lists, even when Fike would still be leading. They should be taken off the list here and noted below as have attempted rookie of the year, but ended their run. Casey14 23:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this symbol needed?
Specifically, the "‡" symbol. As its definition makes no sense to me, given that most drivers who meet the definition given for it aren't tagged. It appears to mean "didn't run a full season but achieved eligibility" - which should just be "no symbol", I think. Comments? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Eligibility?
Two things:

1. There is no mention of a rule change that corresponds to the ¶ symbol. Is this the rule I heard about where a driver won't use up their RotY chance if they don't run for points in that series? I don't see that rule mentioned in the article.

2. The article states that a driver is not eligible to run for RotY in a lower series if they have run more than 5 races in a higher series. This conflicts with a later portion of the article which states that John Wes Townley is running for RotY in the trucks this year. The problem is he has over 35 starts in the Nationwide Series.

--71.243.54.11 (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to your inquiries:


 * 1. Yes, that does indeed correspond to the modifications to ROTY that came with the Series Declaration Rule in 2011, which allows a rookie driver to retain eligibility after exceeding the minimum number of starts if they're not declared for series points.


 * 2. This rule applies to the specific year in question. As long as Townley doesn't exceed five starts in Cup or Xfinity in 2015, he'll be eligible for Truck Series ROTY.


 * Theorycreation (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Drivers who ran in too many races to be eligible
There used to be on this page a separate symbol (†) for drivers who did not declare for Rookie of the Year, but ran in too many races to be eligible for the award in the future. Those drivers aren't listed anymore - would there be any objection if I went back and re-added them? I think this is useful information for someone who might be coming here to find out what year that, say, Brad Keselowski or Carl Edwards ran for Rookie of the Year. Without this information, those two just aren't listed. V35322 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)