That's probably because they didn't get on line until 5 minutes to post time. Seriously, with advance wagering, there's no reason to ever get shut out, unless you're waiting to see the horses in the post parade, which means these people stand just as much chance of being shut out regardless of the length of time between races.

Cutting time between the reaces would not be good. As someone who sat in the cheaper seats last November at Churchill I have to say that the windows were slammed. As much as I hate waiting so long between races when I am watching them on TV, it is really needed for the on track patrons.

Do it all on one day!!
 

A second day for the Breeders cup is like the 2nd day for the NFL draft, it just doesn't compare to day 1. If they want to add 3 races put it with the others, lots of tracks have more than 9 races per day.



Couldn't agree more! Breeders Cup Day is our Superbowl! Every opportunity to add races and make it bigger and better should take place! I assume that these races weren't added because ESPN wouldn't give us more air time? Certainly can't think of any other possible reason that they wouldn't just "add them on" :ThmbDown: Boom

As others have pointed out, two days of enormous handle are better than one. That's the goal, which is why they created a second day instead of making the first day longer. Not sure if it will be rejected by horseplayers, but that's the goal.

I can't understand why anyone would be opposed to the overall plan, even if they disagree with some of the details. Experimentation should be welcomed, not discouraged.

Perhaps introducing a lower-minimum Pick Six -- at least on Friday -- would generate increased interest and participation in that pool.

I would prefer they move the 2 non BC races--races 1 and 2--to Friday and have a whole card of BC races.

Friday would still be a day of stakes races comparable to the NFL league championships followed by the Breeder's Cup races, our Super Bowl.

Good idea, JohnG....the whole idea of the BC was a championship day. Spreading it out makes no sense to me at all. It dilutes the product.

Having thought about this change, I've come to the opinion it's a bad idea. I believe it will dilute the entire BC contest and will eventually make the races look no different than the NBA play offs.

Having said that, I'd like to see the baby races all on the first day and to group the remaining races on the second day. As it is now, I don't play the any of the baby races. Putting the more playable races together on the second day will make a more enjoyable challange, at least for me.

I have mixed feelings about this proposed change but in the end I am against it. It seems to me to just water down the competition making every race even more specialized. I always like the quesiton for horsemen of where to put the inbetween horse for say the sprint to mile turf to classic, now everybody has there own type of race so these horses won't be running against each other anymore. As others have mentioned, we won't see the Very Subtles, Safely Kepts, and Xtra Heats anymore going against the best at good odds, now they will be odds on in their new all filly and mare race.

I always liked a horse like Precisionist, who won the Sprint and was also competitive in the Classic now I assume a horse like him goes in the mile exclusively and goes off 3-5 there instead of what 3-1 or 4-1 in the sprint and higher when he ran in the Classic plus we lose the challenge of seeing if a horse like him can stretch to a mile and a quarter or run with the fastest horses in the world at 6F.

What will winning the Mile dirt prove for year end awards as well? Does the Sprint winner get the higher push toward an Eclispe or the Mile dirt winner? If you are adding a mile dirt race fine, just don't put it on the same level as the Classic and Sprint, make it a $250,000 race like the others indicated on the Friday card so the true champions can compete in the established races not this new one.

We get what over 300 days or more of watered down racing over the course of the year at least in stakes races, the biggies always avoiding each other, so now with this BC expansion horsemen are given more races to not compete their best against each other. I predict field size in specific races will also drop with this dilution and make for less betting opportunities. The horsemen and tracks wanted it I assume and got it but I don't think it does much for fans of racing - at least this fan. Just my two cents. :ThmbDown:

Wiley, I agree with your point about watering things down. That's why I liked a 2yo turf but not the other 2. That is because a 2yo turf filled a void and is a strong complement to the the growing 3yo turf series rather than being a detriment to what is already out there (Dirt Mile/NYRA's Cigar Mile) or basically a redundancy. That is why the only other race I would have liked to see was a stayers event, 2 to 2 1/2 miles on the turf. That also would have filled a void on a so called world championship day. We don't have many of these type of horses here, but the world sure does and it may have encouraged more of that sort of thing here once again. That also would have filled a void. So I'm happy to see the 2yo turf, but the other 2 do nothing for me and honestly I hate the idea of the dirt mile for the reasons you list.

Breeders' Cup Grows To 11 Races, Two Days By John Scheinman
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801482.html

Quote:

… "The reason we put out our complete schedule for the entire year in December is as a courtesy to all the other racetracks in North America to let them know what the big dog is doing," Nader said. "We have 35 to 40 percent of the Grade I races [in the country]. If I even had a hint this was coming, I would have [spoken up] before I released our stakes schedule." … "Any time we create big race days, I'm for that, but I'm really for sharing this information and being more collaborative and communicative," Nader said.