cosmo96
02-15-2010, 08:50 PM
Are racetracks really losing that much? This is not the 1940's. There have been a lot of socioeconomic factors that have changed the game. To name a few television, expanded sports NFL and NBA became popular, hockey away from the north, now in the dessert and swamp, casinos outside of Las Vegas. All of these along with the recession have hurt horseracing. There have been other changes such as simulcasting and computer wagering. That said horseracing has lost some of its base.
Just think if it were in the good ole days with no simulcasts, there would be more people at the track, and everyone would be in the grandstand. There would be no simulcast centers. People would not be sprawled all over the facilities. If this were the case most grandstands would be nearly full during the week and full houses on the weekend. The attendance would rival baseball. Unless I'm on a road trip and depending on the season I go to one of my local tracks: River Downs, Turfway, or Beulah. If all the people were in the grandstands there would be near full houses. If all the people at these tracks were at one of the Indiana casinos they would be full.
Realistically considering the aforementioned socioeconomic factors plus the cost of managing the business, and other obstacles like breeding is racing really in that bad shape? Maybe the handles are down and Kentucky and Ohio are losing out to bordering states with slots, but don't tracks make money on simulcasts? Also in the 1940’s there was no winter racing in the north. Ohio thought they were going to get slots at the tracks, but because of political games they haven't, yet. However, if slots were to come I'm sure they would come up with the millions to convert to racinos. There must be some money in racing, or else the internet would not be full of racing advertising and news. My guess is that horseracing is in the top ten of internet traffic. My questions considering everything said, how bad is the problem? Are the racing moguls crying wolf? How much are they exaggerating?
Just think if it were in the good ole days with no simulcasts, there would be more people at the track, and everyone would be in the grandstand. There would be no simulcast centers. People would not be sprawled all over the facilities. If this were the case most grandstands would be nearly full during the week and full houses on the weekend. The attendance would rival baseball. Unless I'm on a road trip and depending on the season I go to one of my local tracks: River Downs, Turfway, or Beulah. If all the people were in the grandstands there would be near full houses. If all the people at these tracks were at one of the Indiana casinos they would be full.
Realistically considering the aforementioned socioeconomic factors plus the cost of managing the business, and other obstacles like breeding is racing really in that bad shape? Maybe the handles are down and Kentucky and Ohio are losing out to bordering states with slots, but don't tracks make money on simulcasts? Also in the 1940’s there was no winter racing in the north. Ohio thought they were going to get slots at the tracks, but because of political games they haven't, yet. However, if slots were to come I'm sure they would come up with the millions to convert to racinos. There must be some money in racing, or else the internet would not be full of racing advertising and news. My guess is that horseracing is in the top ten of internet traffic. My questions considering everything said, how bad is the problem? Are the racing moguls crying wolf? How much are they exaggerating?