Feud of the Week: J.J. vs. the past; J.J. vs. Gordon

CBSSports.com's Brian De Los Santos and Pete Pistone provide analysis on three weekly racing topics.

Has the Chase format aided Jimmie Johnson's feat of four consecutive championships? Is winning a title in the Chase system more or less impressive than winning under the old points system?

PISTONE: No matter what point system NASCAR employs, Jimmie Johnson and the 48 team are the class of the field. Johnson and Co. obviously have the Chase formula figured out to perfection, considering their performance and championships over the past four seasons. But I believe they'd adjust and excel under any system, and that until someone can rise up to knock them off the mountain, they will continue to dominate the sport. In fact, I think winning under this format is even tougher than the old title format of simply racking up points over the course of the entire season. Under the Chase, things get bunched up for the last 10 races to the finish line, and Johnson has shown he's up to the challenge every year since 2006.

DE LOS SANTOS: Without question, Johnson's championship run has been aided by the Chase, most notably 2007, when Jeff Gordon would have run away with the title under the old system. Regardless of whether you think the 48 team holds back during the regular season, the 2007 season would have been no-contest -- Johnson actually hit a bit of rough luck during that summer. Without the Chase he would not have been able to overcome the huge deficit he found himself in. Carl Edwards accumulated the most points under the traditional system in 2008, but Johnson was close enough (16 points) that I can buy the "holding back" argument a little more. I find myself appreciating titles won under the old format more. Not to take anything away from what Johnson has done by winning four in a row by the Chase method -- he hasn't backed into any titles, he has absolutely dominated those final 10 races, for the most part -- it just seems to me that those who had to perform week-in and week-out over the course of a long, grueling season where every race mattered had a tougher road to the title.

COMMUNITY MEMBER Section_725: The Chase system has definitely aided Jimmie Johnson in winning four consecutive championships. The old system required consistent good performance over 30-plus races. Doing this four years in a row would be very hard. History shows that before the Chase, only one driver won three consecutive championships, nobody won four and few drivers managed championships back to back. The tracks currently in the Chase tend to favor Johnson as well -- although there aren't many tracks where he isn't good. To me, winning under the old point system will always be more impressive because being good over 30-plus races is much more impressive than being good over 10.

Who will reach five titles first: Jimmie Johnson or Jeff Gordon? Will either match or surpass the record seven titles earned by Dale Earnhardt and Richard Petty?

PISTONE: If someone would have asked me a few years ago to take the bet of whether Jimmie Johnson would get to five championships before Jeff Gordon, I would have taken that wager -- and eventually lost. With all respect to Gordon and crew chief Steve Letarte, who made great strides this year to return to championship contention, Johnson will complete the "Drive for Five" before they do. In fact, if the 48 team stays intact, I see no reason why six or seven consecutive titles aren't within reach. Johnson certainly has the potential to tie Petty and Earnhardt for seven, and if all parties remain together and the core of the 48 team stays in place, that mark will be surpassed.

DE LOS SANTOS: It seems like ages ago since Gordon won his last title (2001). In his prime at age 30, the sky was the limit. Solid seasons followed in 2002 and 2003, but the best he could do was fourth in the final standings. And then along came the Chase in 2004. If the season had been run under the old format, Gordon arguably would have had his fifth title. And I have no doubt he would have taken the title under the old format in 2007. So there's no question that Gordon is championship material. It's a matter of a little luck falling his way during those final 10 races. I do think both Gordon and Johnson will get to five titles, and I'm actually leaning toward picking Gordon next year (after all, Johnson can't be charmed forever can he?). But while I think both get to five, at this point in the careers, it just makes more sense that Johnson has a better shot of matching or surpassing Petty and Earnhardt. I give Johnson a 90 percent chance of winning at least two more titles and a 50 percent chance of three to match the all-time record. But for Johnson to maintain his rate of success and claim four more titles before he calls it a career -- I'd put that at 10 percent. Still a chance, but a long shot. I think Gordon will top out at five.

COMMUNITY MEMBER Section_725: Both drivers have a good shot to get to No. 5. With Jimmie's success with the Chase format, it would seem he would get there first. If NASCAR adds a road course to the Chase, the advantage may shift to Gordon. I don't think either driver will get to seven titles. The first reason is financial. With the amount of money both drivers have made, they are less likely to be racing as long as Earnhardt or Petty and will have fewer chances to get to that magic number. The second reason is competition. Kyle Busch just won his first NASCAR championship in the Nationwide Series and will now want to do the same thing at the Cup level. With each year, he gets more mature and understands that you can't win every race, so he might be more willing to take what he can instead of overdriving and having a really bad week. Other drivers also have a good shot at winning the championship, which will limit the chances for J.J. and J.G. Tony Stewart ran very well before the Chase and can contend for a championship, and Mark Martin has shown he still has the fire to win. Next season should be interesting.

Denny Hamlin was held one lap for rough driving after spinning Brad Keselowski during the Nationwide race at Homestead. Juan Pablo Montoya was held two laps after spinning Tony Stewart in the Cup race. Were the penalties fair or foul?

PISTONE: The difference in these situations is that Montoya was warned on the radio not to retaliate; when he did, the extra lap was tacked on. I'm split on my feeling regarding these "feuds." On the one hand, I think rivalries and drivers not liking each other is good for the sport. Some would argue the sport actually needs more of it, and the blandness many fans feel about today's NASCAR could use a dash or two of spice. But I'm not a fan of drivers using cars as weapons, which could result in a dangerous situation that sweeps up innocent bystanders on track. It will be interesting to see how these two tussles from Homestead carry into the 2010 season.

DE LOS SANTOS: Both drivers deserved penalties, I just don't think they were harsh enough. Hamlin didn't exactly make it a secret that he planned to wreck Keselowski, and based on his punishment, NASCAR didn't seem to be all that upset about it. I'd have held him for five laps and made him ineligible for any free passes (and it should be noted that I thought Keselowski should have been penalized the previous week). As for the dustup between Montoya and Stewart, both were at fault for the initial incident, but Montoya got the short end of the stick and wasn't the least bit happy about. So when he returns to the track, he intentionally wrecks Stewart in blatant disregard for the authority of NASCAR officials, who warned him to steer clear. And all he gets is a two-lap penalty when he is already 30 laps down? That's just dumb. He should have been parked for the remainder of the race. On a side note, these drivers aren't being smart with their payback. For one, they're being too blatant. Two, they're doing it when the consequences aren't all that great. Instead, they'd be better off keeping it in the memory banks and cashing out late in a race when a top five or top 10 position is on the line.

COMMUNITY MEMBER Section_725: Hamlin said before the race that he was going to spin Keselowski, so I think he should have been parked for more than one lap -- especially that early in the race. It was essentially a non-penalty since he had plenty of time to get his lap back. If NASCAR really wanted to punish Hamlin, five laps would have been in order. The JPM penalty was essentially meaningless as well, since he was already multiple laps down, so two more laps didn't make much difference in his finishing position. JPM deserved a penalty since it was obvious he spun Stewart on purpose. The big question is why Tony was not given any penalty for blatantly running into JPM, which caused JPM to be so many laps down in the first place. He cut in front of JPM, and got hit from behind, then turns left into the side of JPM. Seems to me the whole thing was started by Tony, escalated by Tony, yet it was JPM who got the brunt of the punishment.