For years, NASCAR’s playoff format has fueled debates in the community, with some calling it the adrenaline shot the sport needed, while others argue it undermines the value of a full-season grind. But reporter Jordan Bianchi has firmly planted himself on one side of that argument, insisting the playoff era is essential for the sport’s growth.
That stance hasn’t gone unchallenged. Bianchi has clashed with multiple veterans of the sport, including Hall of Famer Mark Martin, who has repeatedly dismantled his take with blunt, fact-driven rebuttals.
And now, Martin has gained an unexpected ally in longtime NASCAR writer Rick Houston, who recently blasted Bianchi’s comments about the traditional full-season points system, calling them not just misguided but downright lazy.
Bianchi vs. the Old Guard – NASCAR Playoff War Continues
“Nostalgia doesn’t grow the sport.” It’s a line modern fans often use when defending NASCAR’s current playoff format, suggesting the old full-season points system belongs in the past, along with the era that built the sport’s identity.
And yes, NASCAR has seen a noticeable decline in viewership over the years, with a significant portion of old-school fans abandoning the sport entirely. Yet despite that downturn, the organization’s President, Steve Phelps, already under fire for his recent remarks directed at Richard Childress, remains firm in his belief that the decline was inevitable, not caused by the new format.
But the reality isn’t that simple. The shrinking audience isn’t the result of one decision or one structural change; it’s the product of a combination of frustrations: the polarizing Next Gen car, a perceived departure from traditional values, shifting cultural identity, and, yes, the postseason format that many believe has turned consistency and season-long dominance into afterthoughts.
So when Bianchi doubled down on defending the current system, taking a jab at the traditional full-season format, Houston wasn’t about to let it slide. The longtime NASCAR journalist responded sharply on “The Scene Vault” podcast alongside Martin, and he didn’t bother softening the blow.
“There was a story a couple of weeks ago about Jordan Bianchi saying that he had talked to somebody who had covered the sport back in the full-season points days, and that person had said that the sport was boring to cover back then. And I don’t know who that person was. But I will say this: I’ve been around the sport as a writer since 1991, and not once ever have I considered the sport boring to cover.”
From there, Houston leaned into history, specifically the Dale Earnhardt era, making it clear that the storyline potential was never lacking: “Yeah, if Dale Earnhardt clinches the championship a couple of races early, then write about why. Write about what other teams can do to catch up. Write about Dale Earnhardt’s tire changer, who is a classical violinist.”
He even joked about the hypothetical violinist connection, but his point landed clean: “I don’t know that any of his guys were ever classical violinists, but all of them have various interests. And so there’s too much to write about.”
He argued, “I mean, if that person who covered the sport back then honestly and truly felt like it was boring, I don’t know who they were, but they were not trying hard enough. I mean, that’s just the fact of the matter.”
For Houston, the takeaway is simple: NASCAR never lacked drama; it just lacked people willing to see it. And with that, the playoff war rages on.