Just as long as they don't change the saddlecloths...:rolleyes:

I agree, I would rather see 1 HUGE day rather than 2 big days

Don't forget Very Subtle. Back in those days some tracks had their own pools. I had Very Subtle at over 20/1. I was the only person at EVD who was NOT yelling for Groovy. :D

I think the two days could work, but not over a Friday/Saturday. They're trying to get crowds like Kentucky Oaks Day does the Friday before the Derby, but it's a different time of year. However, the Breeders Cup already draws crowds and handle and is the only racing event that can be really be "expanded", so I can see why they would try it. In the future I could see 12 or 14 BC races spread out over Saturday and Sunday. It might lead to two days of $90 million handle each over one day of $120 million. If that doesn't happen, they can always go back to one day.

I think the Friday before would outdraw the NFL Sunday the day after.

Here's a crazy idea: keep the one day format, but run the races at 2 venues, Ohio-style. Sure, the horsemen will hate it, since they can't be in two places at once, but let's face it... if the races were 15 minutes apart instead of 30, it'd be a big step forward in maintaining the interest level of the viewing audience and betting publc that they're trying to cultivate. In my mind, that's more important than kowtowing to Todd Pletcher's desire to saddle all of his 27 entries personally.

I think they are modeling this after the Kentucky Oaks/Derby where they get huge crowds on Friday. There is no way they are going against the NFL.

It is a bit much with almost an hour between races. That is a good reason to try to get another venue involved. Even a half hour between races would seem shorter with the current format.

Jim

15 Minutes Of Fame Maiden BC Stakes sponsored by Polaroid!!
 

____
Seriously, fear is polls would not be as big. How about Friday Nite?

Can't... Nanny 911 is on.
Seriously though, people can adapt to having 15 fewer minutes to bet. And if not, where do you draw the line? Why cut it off at only 30 minutes? If there were 2 hours between races, you'd probably get a few more bucks into the pool too.
Also, the shortterm sacrifice of some money in the pool on a given race might be worth it if the revamped timing kept the TV ratings higher and kept more people interested longer.

I disagree if televised on cable exclusively.

Hell, I'll even give up "Law and Order." :D

Talked into it!
 

______OK. I agree- but how about 1 venue and alternate dirt (or rubber) and turf on the same track?

Explain. Regardless of who televises it, don't higher ratings always mean they can sell the broadcast rates for a higher price? And if more people stick around longer, doesn't that mean more money in the pools in the later races? Why does any of this depends on what channel it's on?

I don't think it's the surface the race is being run on that keeps the interval from being 15 minutes... it's the logistics of getting all the horses and jockeys suited up and on and off the track quickly enough, without running into bottlenecks in the paddock and holding areas.

I believe the time between races facilitates the building of the wagering pools to record levels. Even with one hour between races I see many folks being shut out on BC day due to reasons besides they were not ready to bet.

The problem with racing coverage being available only on a cable network is that not everyone uses cablevision services. You eliminate more than half of the available TV sets when you only serve cable subscribers.

Murph

Co-Sign!!!