Randy Moss Supports Changing the TC

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

Yeah but literally only 4 TC winners (AP, Affirmed, Slew, and Secretariat) won it at this set up.

Literally twice as many won it under any other setups.

You're protecting something that's isn't even that special.

I agree. Back in the old days, many of the horses would even run a race between the Preakness and Belmont.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Without owners being willing to buy horses and lose money on a net basis, there is no game. That's no different than without bettors making wagers, there is no game.

So you have to balance the two.

--and:

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Crop sizes are WAY down and we haven't had a corresponding consolidation of tracks/races to match. You'd have to ask breeders why crop sizes are down, but I'm going to guess it's because there wasn't enough demand from owners to buy horses at appropriate prices because they were losing money and economic times were a little tougher.

I would argue that CUSTOMER demand for the product has always played a direct role in shaping OWNER demand to purchase horses.

Think about it.

Back when racing at B, C, and D tracks could still regularly draw (what?) 5k? 10k? maybe even 12k? fans on a non special event day?

Obviously, customer demand for the product was much higher then vs. now.

As was owner demand to purchase horses.

Fast forward to present day...

Where B, C, and D tracks now regularly draw (what?) 60? 70? maybe even 150? fans on a non special event day?

Obviously, customer demand for the product is much lower now vs. then.

As is owner demand to purchase horses.

I also submit to you the idea that a certain percentage of horseplayers -- that's right I said horseplayers -- have always become owners.

As the number of horseplayers dwindles... So does the number of owners.

I agree. You need both horseplayers and owners.

As you put it:

You have to balance the two.



-jp

.

[barn32]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In the great gambling laboratory known as Las Vegas...horse-betting is officially DEAD. The few remaining horseplayers have been relegated to remote corners of the specious sportsbooks...and there are no assigned tellers to take their bets. I spent all day yesterday standing behind sports bettors...who were betting on baseball games, six hours before they were scheduled to begin.

And our game is looking for "network coverage"?

Have you been to Southpoint lately?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by barn32

Have you been to Southpoint lately?

No...but I will make it my next stop.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

No...but I will make it my next stop.

Southpoint is very very good as is the Westgate (Hilton). Love that book.

[dilanesp]

One thing I am surprised Moss doesn't realize, given he works in TV:

The current schedule is ideal for television. It maintains interest. Stretch it out and I bet the rights fees, especially for the Belmont, go down.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When do you suppose this "balance" is to take place? Millions and millions of dollars in increased purses have been handed out to the owners in order to lighten the burden that they carry in this game. As an owner yourself...can you tell us when this "balance" is set to kick in...so the horseplayers can ALSO see some benefit from all this "extra money" that has been funneled to this sport in recent years?

I'm not sure where the balance is or that it actually exists. I see a lot of interests (owners, players, jockeys/trainers, and government) all fighting for a piece of a pie that is way too small to make most of them whole.

I'm not smart enough to solve these problems, but I understand the totality of them a little better now when the vet bills come in.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

I also submit to you the idea that a certain percentage of horseplayers -- that's right I said horseplayers -- have always become owners.

As the number of horseplayers dwindles... So does the number of owners.

I agree. You need both horseplayers and owners.

As you put it:

You have to balance the two.

-jp

.

Great insight. I hadn't thought of it in those terms before now, but you are right. I guess I'm smarter now than I was an hour ago.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

Southpoint is very very good as is the Westgate (Hilton). Love that book.

I know the director at Westgate pretty well (Jay Kornegay). If you're heading there on a big day and need seats, let me know. He's always accommodating. Great guy.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

I know the director at Westgate pretty well (Jay Kornegay). If you're heading there on a big day and need seats, let me know. He's always accommodating. Great guy.

Thanks, TP, very kind. He really does run a great book, and they're renovating and expanding it some more (I was just there last weekend).

I also checked out Sunset Station's book and liked that joint too. Big and comfortable and they didn't completely marginalize horse racing.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I'm perfectly OK with that. Our opinions obviously differ.

I would say our end game is the same. I think using the setups of other Triple Crowns as data points the idea that more time makes it easier is simply false. Those Triple Crowns reflect it doesn't. You're giving every other three year old a rest/ chance to point to races in addition to the leg winners. It's a draw at best.

PA, the best argument to change it isn't TV ratings, handle or the traditionalism of the the year 1968 (first year of this setup.) It's this. Things have already changed.

I don't mean this as a shot but you're the guy screaming to preserve the one house in the neighborhood from the 1800's even though all the other houses have already been torn down. Your fight has already been lost. Racing evolves. The way horses are bred and raced is completely different than 1968. The idea that preserving the race setup from then makes AP's TC similar to Affirmed's TC is just silly. You've already lost the fight.

Let's look at the evidence...

Prior to Spend A Buck's skipping the Preakness for the Jersey Derby the idea of a top, healthy three year-old not racing in all three legs was sheer madness. It was a non-starter. The next year Visa started the bonus. This incentivized racing in all three legs. Then about 10-15 years ago Visa ended the bonus and it became envogue to skip legs.

So in 1970's you had Secretariat beating Sham three times. You had Affirmed and Alydar three times. You had Easy Goer and Sunday Silence.

Let's pretend for a second Alydar and Affirmed were born in 2014. Baffert would train one and Pletcher the other because that's the law as CJ will tell you. So the Baffert trained Alydar wins the Derby. The Pletcher trained Affirmed then skips the Preakness. Alydar romps in Baltimore at 1-9. Then has to meet a rest Alydar in the Belmont. Now obviously there's no way to predict who would win but given the small margin in the actual race its very reasonable to say Alydar gets him with the extra rest. So in 2017 you can argue Affirmed wouldn't be a Triple Crown winner. You can argue those horses from the 60's, 70's and 80's didn't have to deal with horses skipping legs.

Obviously all this is hypothetically but my point is this. You're fighting a fight that's been lost already. You can dig in your heals all you want say "its got to be five weeks at those distances" but as long as breeders bred horses differently and trainers race horses differently the idea that the TC is the same isn't true. Because if you choose not to change something but everything around it, everything in its environment changes it to changes whether you want it to or not.

The Triple Crown of 2017 isn't the Triple Crown of 1968. You're fight has been lost already.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

Thanks, TP, very kind. He really does run a great book, and they're renovating and expanding it some more (I was just there last weekend).

I also checked out Sunset Station's book and liked that joint too. Big and comfortable and they didn't completely marginalize horse racing.

I also know the director at Palace Station (did the BC and KY Derby seminar in the last year). He's another really good guy and will look out for players. Anyone on this forum that plans on going to either of these two places, let me know.

In my opinion, the Westgate is the best place to watch sports or horses. It's off the strip, so that might deter some, but the environment is great.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

I think the real problem is money.

Here is how you "fix" the Triple Crown. The Derby/Preakness/Belmont races should all be $5M races.

Anyone who earns a check in the Preakness that ran in the Derby gets XX% bonus. Anyone who ran in both the Derby and Preakness and gets a check in the Belmont earns XX% bonus.

$5M total purse money for what is arguably the marquee North American Horse Racing series is not good enough. Not when there are $10M - $12M races out there now.

Make the earning potential big enough and trainers / owners will make sure the best of the crop compete in all three. For christs sake...get creative.

Sounds like you're an owner.

Didn't some sponsor offer a $5 mil bonus towards a TC winner about 30 years ago?

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I can't agree with this one point.

It's almost impossible for owners to cover costs as it is now. An owner pretty much has to assume he/she is going to lose some money, but be willing to do so because of the excitement, fun, and dream of winning something big.

Making the purses lower is not going to get many owners to run more frequently. It's going to make them look for a new less expensive hobby.

I own a piece of 3 horses with some partners. We never skipped a race because the purses are large and we didn't have to run. We love large purses and want to run as often as possible to take advantage of them. But it's not always possible because sometimes there isn't an appropriate spot and sometimes the horses have physical issues.

I think there's a delicate balance between the players and owners/trainers etc...

You need both.

You need happy players to bet and raise handle, but you also need owners to be doing well so they keep buying horses. Then more will be bred and we won't have shortages.

I think I understand where the lower purses suggestions would encourage more frequent running because when the purses practically doubled over the last 20 years I've noticed the starts went from around 3 weeks+ to now of 5 - 6 weeks +/-.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The Belmont Stakes exists for one reason and one reason only.

The Test of the Champion.

It exists to put the screws to a potential Triple Crown winner. That's the only reason it exists in its current form. You change the distance or you change the spacing between the Preakness and Belmont, and you might as well get rid of the Triple Crown altogether as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly and for future breeding rights for possible stamina. The entire TC schedule is set up for this purpose.