Randy Moss Supports Changing the TC

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

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.

That's all well and good, but what proof, exactly, do you have, that making changes for the sake of making changes will actually make things better overall? The law of unintended consequences is bound to creep into the mix (as someone has already pointed out), and your nice and neat scenario above becomes just one of many possible different outcomes given a "new arrangement."

Your goal here seems to be to make the TC more competitive by somehow enticing horses to run in all three legs, yet also make the TC easier to win by giving more rest between races.

What makes you so sure that by doing that, trainers/owners will indeed want to run their horses in all three legs, especially if they don't finish well in the Derby and/or the Preakness? I really don't see any way (short of providing some sort of monetary incentive) of changing the TC races that will make it more enticing to run a horse in all three legs.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

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.

Gato Del Sol did it just three years before Spend a Buck. (Swaps did it too, but that was farther back.)

Also, I don't know where this fits, but one other point.

The big change nobody is talking about is in the nature of the Kentucky Derby. Specifically, it draws 20 starters every year, and most of those starters have only had a handful of starts. Essentially, what owners do now is barely clear the qualifying threshold (now points, used to be graded stakes earnings) and then enter any qualified horse in the Derby.

That is VERY different than the situation even just 20 years ago. Silver Charm's 1997 Derby didn't even use the auxiliary starting gate. The reason is that what used to happen is that there were plenty of horses who COULD enter the Derby but didn't, because their owners and trainers didn't think they were ready or didn't think they were good enough.

Think about this-- a 20 horse Derby every year means that every year there's going to be 5 or 6 or 7 horses who run up the track in the Derby but who were at least fairly highly regarded, and then become candidates to skip the Preakness and run in the Belmont. Not all of them will do it, but that route is available, and it produces a pool of potential Belmont upsetters who skipped the Preakness every year.

Whereas beforehand, when the Derby field was shorter and the horses in the Derby were more seasoned, the highly regarded horses were far less likely to finish 8th or 12th or 14th in the Derby. Instead they finished 2nd or 4th or 5th and then went ahead and ran in the Preakness.

I understand the 20 horse Derby filled with horses with very little established form is a fun gambling crapshoot. And it's probably good television (ratings have gone up). But I've never been convinced this is good for the sport. Shorter Derby fields full of horses who have started a lot more and established a lot more good form would probably get us both more TC's and more horses running in the three races.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

That's all well and good, but what proof, exactly, do you have, that making changes for the sake of making changes will actually make things better overall? The law of unintended consequences is bound to creep into the mix (as someone has already pointed out), and your nice and neat scenario above becomes just one of many possible different outcomes given a "new arrangement."

Your goal here seems to be to make the TC more competitive by somehow enticing horses to run in all three legs, yet also make the TC easier to win by giving more rest between races.

What makes you so sure that by doing that, trainers/owners will indeed want to run their horses in all three legs, especially if they don't finish well in the Derby and/or the Preakness? I really don't see any way (short of providing some sort of monetary incentive) of changing the TC races that will make it more enticing to run a horse in all three legs.

You're looking for a guarantee that this makes things better. Life doesn't work that way. I have no idea what happens till it happens.

However two points on that...

1. I mentioned this on Page One. The NBA, MLB and NFL constantly change their sports. They add playoffs, have teams switch divisions, change the length of seasons and CONSTANTLY change the rules of their game. Well run sports leagues understand you have to keep changing and trying new things or you die. That's why my philosophy is you have to throw EVERYTHING on the table. It's the only way success comes. It's how successful sports leagues operate. Everything is on the table for change.

2. You could run the Derby any day and its still the Derby. 100K people will show up even on Christmas morning. To the casual fan and media companies could care less. So really the only people who would care if the races moved or are altered are the hardcore people. Essentially the commentators on this board.

But here's the rub on that. We all acknowledge that demo is shrinking. There's less hardcore horse racing fans now than ever. So by not even exploring a change you're essentially accommodating a demo which you concede is shrinking for a chance to grow the business. It's the very definition of a bad business decision.

At the end of the day the game is shrinking. It's dying. And by saying no to even considering adjusting the Triple Crown to grow it you're essentially waving the white flag. The notion that the TC is doing great but racing is in shambles simply isn't accurate because to have a healthy, successful TC you need healthy successful racing and that is lacking.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Gato Del Sol did it just three years before Spend a Buck. (Swaps did it too, but that was farther back.)

Also, I don't know where this fits, but one other point.

The big change nobody is talking about is in the nature of the Kentucky Derby. Specifically, it draws 20 starters every year, and most of those starters have only had a handful of starts. Essentially, what owners do now is barely clear the qualifying threshold (now points, used to be graded stakes earnings) and then enter any qualified horse in the Derby.

That is VERY different than the situation even just 20 years ago. Silver Charm's 1997 Derby didn't even use the auxiliary starting gate. The reason is that what used to happen is that there were plenty of horses who COULD enter the Derby but didn't, because their owners and trainers didn't think they were ready or didn't think they were good enough.

Think about this-- a 20 horse Derby every year means that every year there's going to be 5 or 6 or 7 horses who run up the track in the Derby but who were at least fairly highly regarded, and then become candidates to skip the Preakness and run in the Belmont. Not all of them will do it, but that route is available, and it produces a pool of potential Belmont upsetters who skipped the Preakness every year.

Whereas beforehand, when the Derby field was shorter and the horses in the Derby were more seasoned, the highly regarded horses were far less likely to finish 8th or 12th or 14th in the Derby. Instead they finished 2nd or 4th or 5th and then went ahead and ran in the Preakness.

I understand the 20 horse Derby filled with horses with very little established form is a fun gambling crapshoot. And it's probably good television (ratings have gone up). But I've never been convinced this is good for the sport. Shorter Derby fields full of horses who have started a lot more and established a lot more good form would probably get us both more TC's and more horses running in the three races.

You'd love my Derby qualifying idea. You make the Derby an Invitational. Automatic bids for all the major preps starting with the BC. The balance of the field is filled out by selection committee like the NCAA tourney. Racing Secretaries, horseplayers, breeders, and horseman vote in the rest. They meeting in Louisville the Sunday after the Arkansas Derby. That night like the NCAA's is a selection show. 20 horses are invited at that point. If only 12 or 14 or 18 or how every man show up that's your field. No additional invites. If you can't crack the top 20 by the committee or win a prep you don't below.

[Grits]

Dilane, your post is a good one. I've come to think the primary state we find ourselves in currently has to do with the fact that many trainers are businessmen not horsemen. I fully understand success and making money but I don't see where we are today as beneficial. I don't see breeding solely for speed without stamina as beneficial.

I don't know much. But, in this game, I do know that there are three sure things.

1. Good luck

2. Bad luck

3. Greatness

We see the first two play out hourly, every day. The last one comes along rarely. And we don't need to change the Triple Crown to witness it. Without fail, it will rise, and we know it when we see it!!!

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Gato Del Sol did it just three years before Spend a Buck. (Swaps did it too, but that was farther back.)

Also, I don't know where this fits, but one other point.

The big change nobody is talking about is in the nature of the Kentucky Derby. Specifically, it draws 20 starters every year, and most of those starters have only had a handful of starts. Essentially, what owners do now is barely clear the qualifying threshold (now points, used to be graded stakes earnings) and then enter any qualified horse in the Derby.

That is VERY different than the situation even just 20 years ago. Silver Charm's 1997 Derby didn't even use the auxiliary starting gate. The reason is that what used to happen is that there were plenty of horses who COULD enter the Derby but didn't, because their owners and trainers didn't think they were ready or didn't think they were good enough.

Think about this-- a 20 horse Derby every year means that every year there's going to be 5 or 6 or 7 horses who run up the track in the Derby but who were at least fairly highly regarded, and then become candidates to skip the Preakness and run in the Belmont. Not all of them will do it, but that route is available, and it produces a pool of potential Belmont upsetters who skipped the Preakness every year.

Whereas beforehand, when the Derby field was shorter and the horses in the Derby were more seasoned, the highly regarded horses were far less likely to finish 8th or 12th or 14th in the Derby. Instead they finished 2nd or 4th or 5th and then went ahead and ran in the Preakness.

I understand the 20 horse Derby filled with horses with very little established form is a fun gambling crapshoot. And it's probably good television (ratings have gone up). But I've never been convinced this is good for the sport. Shorter Derby fields full of horses who have started a lot more and established a lot more good form would probably get us both more TC's and more horses running in the three races.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

You can argue those horses from the 60's, 70's and 80's didn't have to deal with horses skipping legs.

Your heart and your best intentions might tell you that's true, but the facts and the evidence say otherwise...

1960 - Celtic Ash wins Belmont after skipping Derby
1962 - Greek Money wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Jaipur (skipped Derby) wins Belmont by a nose over Admiral's Voyage (skipped Preakness)
1968 - Stage Door Johnny wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1971 - Pass Catcher wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1972 - Bee Bee Bee wins Preakness after missing Derby; Riva Ridge won other 2
1979- Coastal wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1980 - Codex wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Temperence Hill wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1981 - Summing wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1982 - Aloma's Ruler wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Conquistador Cielo wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1983 - Deputed Testamony wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Caveat wins Belmont, skipped Preakness
1985 - Creme Fraiche wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1986 - Danzig Connection wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Your heart and your best intentions might tell you that's true, but the facts and the evidence say otherwise...

1960 - Celtic Ash wins Belmont after skipping Derby
1962 - Greek Money wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Jaipur (skipped Derby) wins Belmont by a nose over Admiral's Voyage (skipped Preakness)
1968 - Stage Door Johnny wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1971 - Pass Catcher wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1972 - Bee Bee Bee wins Preakness after missing Derby; Riva Ridge won other 2
1979- Coastal wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1980 - Codex wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Temperence Hill wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1981 - Summing wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1982 - Aloma's Ruler wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Conquistador Cielo wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1983 - Deputed Testamony wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Caveat wins Belmont, skipped Preakness
1985 - Creme Fraiche wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1986 - Danzig Connection wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs

All tomato cans

[Gander36]

Perhaps some in the industry are putting TOO MUCH emphasis on the Triple Crown as the the industry savior?

Yes, the three races are the signature event(s) for horse racing, drawing the most attention from the very casual fan, but the three races seem to be doing just fine on attendance, handle, and TV viewership. And yes, there is always more interests if the there is the chance of a TC winner going into the Belmont, but that seems to occur regularly enough already.

The Triple Crown is like the World Cup or playoffs. If you spaced it out, the general public would lose interests, especially if there was no chance for a TC winner. And I believe it would be HARDER to win spaced out.

One of the reasons you get a decent percentage of horses that can win the first 2 legs is the short spacing between the Derby and the Preakness. Given the point system now in place on the road to the Derby, it really makes no sense whatsoever for a campaigned 3-year old Derby also-ran to compete in the Preakness two weeks after the Derby. Of the few that do, they often face a Derby winner at the top of his game. The others in the race are Maryland locals or 2nd tier stakes horses. (I realize this year was a big exception). If you added more time between the Derby and Preakness, more Derby contestants would participate, the Derby winner has a better chance of going off form, and new talent would emerge to challenge. Not that this is bad, but it would make it harder to get a first two-legs winner to the Belmont, making it harder to win all three!

Anyway, Horse Racing as many major issues. The popularity and format of the Triple Crown as it is - is not one of them.

[Jeff P]

USA Today Sports article | By: Chris Korman | May 6, 2016 4:24 pm
Last year's Triple Crown didn't change horse racing (and it didn't need to)
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/05/hors...kentucky-derby

American Pharaoh winning the Triple Crown appears to have done little to make horse racing more popular with the average fan. There’s been no long-awaited bounce back into the mainstream.

My takeaway was that American Pharaoh winning the Triple Crown -- while a great moment in and of itself -- did very little in converting the casual fan into horseplayers department.

And I have also come to believe - before it happened - that more than a few of racing's decision makers (track management, leadership at horsemen's alphabet groups, racing commissioners, and politicians) actually thought it would.

You know what converts casual fans into horseplayers?

Using your wits to cash a nice win ticket or a nice exacta. (Or witnessing someone else accomplish that feat during those first few track visits.)

That's what converts the casual fan into a new horseplayer.

If there's any one thing racing needs the most: IT'S THAT.




-jp

.

[Gander36]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

USA Today Sports article | By: Chris Korman | May 6, 2016 4:24 pm
Last year's Triple Crown didn't change horse racing (and it didn't need to)
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/05/hors...kentucky-derby

You know what converts casual fans into horseplayers?

Using your wits to cash a nice win ticket or a nice exacta. (Or witnessing someone else accomplish that feat during those first few track visits.)

That's what converts the casual fan into a new horseplayer.

If there's any one thing racing needs the most: IT'S THAT.

-jp

.

Agree, but...

Horse racing today is competing for gambling market share. As opposed to it's heyday, when it was the only (legal) game in town, it now competes with poker, casinos, fantasy, lotto, and even itself. Think about horse racing compared to other forms available from these perspectives:

FACILITIES - Compare LeBergeDuLac Casino in Lake Charles to Delta Downs, or ANY casino to most tracks

ACTION - time it takes between new action, like the time for 10 hands of poker compared to 10 races. Then if you are wise enough to sit out the unplayable races you realize there's not much action at all.

BIG WINS - Chance (or dream) of a meaningful WIN (even life changing) like you have with slots or lotto. Casual fans that attend horse races bet $2 across on the favorite, either lose, or win peanuts. I love seeing the newbie scream and hollar after their 3-5 horse won, then watch their faces when they get their winnings.

KNOWLEDGE - its a lot easier to get up to speed on Black Jack than handicapping, no? Today's millennials (in general) are not going to spend the time or give the effort to create an advantage for themselves, so if some do try racing, they won't last long.

PERKS - I STILL pay to get in some tracks and have never gotten a meal or free drink because of my horse wagers. I've never been invited to see a decent concert or given a hotel room because of my horse wagers.

INTEGRITY! - Every race card has suspect situations, trainers hiding info, jockeys giving unexplainable rides, trainers that are allowed to list their wives or assistants as trainers when they get caught using illegal medicine, inconsistent rulings, nonsensical exotic payoffs. Only BAD news reaches the mainstream media. Casinos go overboard to make patrons feel like the games are on the up and up with cameras everywhere, documentaries explaining how machines work, smaller takeouts, etc.

I don't have the answers, but horse racing's controlling influence are rich breeders, owners, top trainers and top jockeys. They all are inter-connected and are all doing fine. When we are down to 5 tracks they'll still do fine.
Why would they want to change anything?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Your goal here seems to be to make the TC more competitive by somehow enticing horses to run in all three legs, yet also make the TC easier to win by giving more rest between races.

I'm going to disagree with your premise that the TC would become easier to win. For one thing, ALL the horses get whatever extra rest there is. They all benefit equally.

If your point is that a tired horse is less likely to get beat by a fresher horse, that may be so. But on the flip side, you'll have horses that have a little more time to mature, and that may work against a Derby/Preakness winner. I think for every argument in favor of a longer schedule helping the Derby winner, there is one that would be disadvantageous.

I think at best you could call it a wash.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

https://twitter.com/randy_moss_tv/st...85716838617088

The twitter thread is the worth the read because it debunks several popular justifications to not change. (I.E. multiple winners of TC have done it at different setups and my favorite "don't fix what's not broken." First off every aspect of racing is broken. This is just less broken. Second, both MLB and NFL have made massive changes to their games when they were the biggest game in town (interleague play, DH, playoffs, divisions, overtime, DH, etc.) Successful businesses understand you need to constantly change to stay ahead. Meanwhile sports like boxing and golf have stayed traditional. how's that working?

First point. The Kentucky Derby, CDI and others will never allow that race to run any other day except the first Saturday on May.
Second. The Preakness is kind of 'stuck' because the following weekend is Memorial Day. There are two very huge sporting events on that weekend.
The Indianapolis 500 and NASCAR's Coca Cola 600.
Both evens receive very good tv ratings.
May sweeps is over. May is a huge month for tv viewing. After Memorial Day weekend, tv viewership drops off significantly. So does ad revenue.
So in order for NBC to justify the expense of producing the TC races, must receive the ad revenue and ratings necessary to justify the ad rates they must charge.
Moving the Preakness off its present traditional weekend will be a difficult undertaking.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

If they did alter the spacing of the Triple Crown Racing, what would the new spacing look like...?

Derby, then 6 weeks to Preakness, then another 6 weeks for the Belmont Stakes...?

Just wondering what some alternatives might look like to understand if change is warranted at this point.

That much time between the TC races will result in interest waning among the casual racing viewer. You are asking the typical American that has the attention span of a gnat to pay attention to a series that takes 12 weeks to complete?
Don't think so.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Grits

FWIW.... ESPN, earlier this year, laid off over 100 of their folks, commentators included. So, ESPN isn't the be all, end all that it once was given they're bleeding losses. As the piece notes, viewers are finding other sources. NBCSN which picked us up is one of those.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/s...offs.html?_r=0

Hi GRITS!!!
Trip to the Spa this summer?
Its closing in fast.
Just 38 days til opening day

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Gander36

I don't have the answers, but horse racing's controlling influence are rich breeders, owners, top trainers and top jockeys. They all are inter-connected and are all doing fine. When we are down to 5 tracks they'll still do fine.
Why would they want to change anything?

I can't speak for any other horseplayer...but I was hoping that TRACK MANAGEMENT would be the agent for some badly-needed radical change within the game...once it became apparent that the wagering pools were in a state of perpetual decline. But it has now become equally apparent that the racetracks' main aspiration is to transform themselves into CASINOS, so...any real hope that I entertained for the betterment of this game, is now gone.